WITHscience is a slaughterhouse. We rarely realize the extent to which animal life supports the research that provides us with medicines or the regulation that keeps us safe. Live animals were used at 2.64 m. officially sanctioned scientific procedures in the UK in 2024, many of which will be excruciating or painful, and many of which will be fatal. But the government's new strategy phase out animal testing – published earlier this month – suggests that in the near future, new technologies may largely replace the use of animals in our scientific endeavors.
The UK has previously banned animal testing for cosmetics and has already taken steps to regulate and reduce its use in research. But some unjustifiably cruel experiments still take place: forced swim test (FST), for example, where a rodent is placed in a body of water from which it cannot escape, and researchers measure whether antidepressants prolong its fight for life. The government says no new FST licenses will be issued, effectively banning the activity. Similar goals have been set for the next few years to end testing of harsh chemicals on the eyes and skin.
This is welcome, but there are many other common practices, such as transplanting tumors into mice for cancer research, that most people still consider acceptable despite their obvious barbarity. When animal welfare is so starkly pitted against human benefit, our collective compassion has a limit. The government will only succeed if it can convince scientists and the public that these long-standing and proven experimental methods can be replaced by something just as good or better.
Fortunately, new alternatives are emerging. The so-called organ-on-a-chip systemswhich use lab-grown cells organized into a miniature network that can mimic the body's complex systems are already in use. And machine learning systems prove how skillful V predicting potential toxic effects from medications as they were in protein structure prediction. These approaches do not always provide a complete picture of how a particular treatment might work in humans, but of course there are no animal trials either. Student scientists are still taught these classic cautionary tales: paracetamol is toxic to dogs and cats, and thalidomide has been shown to be safe for rats.
Contrary to the slogans and aspirations of its AI strategy, the government appears to have real plan for the application of these technologies. Direct funding has been committed to the tune of £60 million and the focus is on identifying specific animal research methods currently in use, measuring their effectiveness and testing non-animal alternatives that could produce similar results. And it's encouraging that the strategy outlines several points over the next decade when specific alternative methods are expected to mature, rather than pointing to the technology as a whole as a panacea.
This is an opportunity for both scientific and economic progress. Animal testing isn't just cruel, it's… expensive and time consuming. The EU and the US have just as dedicated To reduce animal experimentstherefore, they will be rewarded for developing technologies and know-how that can be applied throughout the world. But most importantly, there is a moral imperative to free these animals. Previous governments have significantly reduced the number of so-called charismatic species – animals beloved by people such as dogs and horses – used in experiments. Today, 95% of laboratory animals in the UK are rodents, birds or fish. Don't they deserve the same attention?
