Wondering why we've been talking so much about the new Research Modernization NOW website? This short video explains its value, and who it’s for. A resource designed for multiple audiences: ✍️ Journalists and authors Reporting on animal testing, non-animal methods, biomedical research, or any of the 15 disease areas covered. It also provides context on recent NIH and FDA developments, oversight systems (including IACUCs), and the implications of the scientific evidence on animal sentience. 🧑‍🎓 Students A reliable starting point for reports, or for building a foundational understanding of these issues. 🧑‍🏫 Educators Content to support teaching on research methods, ethics, and emerging scientific approaches. 🧑‍💼 Policymakers and staff Background research and policy-relevant insights to inform legislative priorities and decisions. 🧑‍⚕️ Healthcare professionals A way to stay current on the scientific and regulatory landscape, and to engage in efforts advancing human‑relevant science. 🐾 Animal advocates Credible, evidence-based information to deepen understanding of animal use in research and testing, and to strengthen advocacy for modern, non-animal approaches. This structured, evidence-based resource is for anyone working at the intersection of science, policy, and ethics, and for those helping drive the transition to human-relevant research. 🎞️ Watch the video to see how it can support your work. youtu.be/wCT9OTnSUk8

Apparently, requiring experimenters to justify using animals was a bridge too far. 🙄 Earlier this month, we reported on National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's announcement that grant applicants proposing experiments on animals would be required to justify animal use and provide a plan to validate their findings in a human model. Those requirements have now been quietly removed, and acting director David Goff's blog is considerably weaker. Original version: web.archive.org/web/20261007… Today's version: nhlbi.nih.gov/about/leadersh… The original requirements were already the **bare minimum**. NHLBI was only telling experimenters they should explain why they propose using animals and have a plan to demonstrate whether the results would translate to humans. If an animal experiment can't withstand that level of scrutiny, why should the public be funding it? Biomedical research needs more than "encouraging language" about non-animal methods. Research modernization will not be achieved by asking nicely and hoping the system changes itself. It means changing the system. NHLBI needs to find its lost nerve, restore these requirements, and go much further. @NIHDirector_Jay @SecKennedy

Animal use in Canada increased in 2025. The species data reported by the Canadian Council on Animal Care show that animal use rose from approximately 3.71 million animals in 2024 to 3.94 million in 2025, an increase of more than 228,000 animals. ccac.ca/Documents/AUD/CCAC_A… Fish remained the largest category, increasing by 124,786 animals. Bird use increased by 70,959. Cattle use increased by 33,520. Pig use increased from 23,770 to 42,035, a 77% increase. Reported cat use increased from 4,911 to 16,143, more than tripling year over year. Some categories have declined. Reptile use fell from 27,891 to 10,669. Rabbit use fell from 3,992 to 2,379. Rat use declined from 110,134 to 94,884. Mouse use decreased modestly, from 1.20 million to 1.18 million. The year-over-year comparison by Category of Invasiveness shows some redistribution: ▪️ Category B (little or no discomfort or stress) increased by 39,152 animals, to 1,853,901 total ▪️ Category C (minor stress or pain of short duration) increased by 239,202 animals, to 1,031,620 total ▪️ Category D (moderate to severe distress or discomfort) decreased by 64,225 animals, to 1,054,879 total ▪️ Category E (severe pain near, at, or above the pain tolerance threshold in unanesthetized conscious animals) increased by 6,471 animals, to 104,912 total Categories D and E together fell from approximately 31.8% to 28.7% of total reported animal use. The decline is measurable, but it does not erase the scale of this harm: more than 1.15 million animals were assigned to protocols involving moderate-to-severe pain in 2025. Basic research accounted for 44.3% of animal use, 13.3% were used in experiments relating to human or animal diseases and disorders, and 3.8% were used for education and training. Overall, animal use increased. Category E use increased. Basic research continues to be the purpose for which most animals are used. These are not the numbers of a country committed to replacing experiments on animals. Nearly 4 million animals make the case clear: Canada needs Research Modernization NOW. Learn more at Science.PETA.org. #AnimalWelfare #AnimalResearch #SciencePolicy #ResearchEthics #Bioethics

When “humane killing” leaves suffering to chance Humane killing is supposed to be a fundamental welfare requirement in experiments on animals. You would think that the method used wouldn’t change based on who performs it, which technique they were taught, or whether the available tool happens to be a pen, scissors, or a cage scraper. Yet that is the inconsistency documented in a 2026 UK survey by Jessica E Martin, @Loxafrican, and @JasMClarkson of @UniofNewcastle. The study was published in @AW_TheJournal: cambridge.org/core/journals/… Mice and rats make up the vast majority of animals used in experiments, and cervical dislocation is the most commonly reported method for killing them in the UK. Despite the welfare consequences of how this procedure is performed, the survey found no standardized technique and no dedicated, validated, commercially available tool. Instead, researchers documented wide variation in both the techniques and equipment used. Mice were predominantly killed manually using the thumb and forefinger (69.4%); 25.9% reported mechanical methods. For rats, 67.5% reported using mechanical methods, 15% manual methods, and 17.5% were unsure. The equipment used for mechanical cervical dislocation was also inconsistent: respondents reported metal rods, closed scissors, and pens, as well as card cage holders, tweezers, closed forceps, cage dividers, hemostats, rulers, plastic or metal scrapers, broom handles, and wrenches or spanners. There was little or no consensus about whether stretching, twisting, or both are essential to achieve dislocation. The authors wrote, "[t]hese divergent views suggest that current practice is highly driven at the institutional level, relying on ‘local processes’ and personal belief/preferences rather than empirical evidence." Some institutions had no standard operating procedures. The location and accuracy of cervical dislocation are critical because inaccurate application can compromise animal welfare and "cause prolonged suffering through delayed onset of unconsciousness as well as death via asphyxia." Institutions conducting experiments on animals are expected to operate within legal, regulatory, and ethical frameworks, and maintain public trust. How effective are those protections when a basic requirement of humane killing lacks consistency, validation, and evidence-based standards? Calling a procedure “humane” does not make it so. Better standards could reduce harm and should be implemented, but a system built around using and killing animals will always treat their suffering as a technical problem to be managed. Science should instead be working to eliminate it. #AnimalWelfare #AnimalResearch #ResearchEthics #SciencePolicy

🚀 The transition to non-animal methods is gaining economic momentum. ICYMI: Earlier this year, @allied_market projected that the global market for non-animal testing will reach $29.4 billion by 2030, with an annual growth rate of 13.5%. 📈 Driving this growth are advances in organ-on-a-chip technology, other in vitro approaches, computational modeling, omics and high-throughput technologies, as well as increasing governmental, regulatory, and industrial interest in non-animal methods. It’s another indication that the future of science is moving toward innovative, human-based approaches. You can request a sample of the report Non-Animal Alternative Testing Market (2021-2030) here: alliedmarketresearch.com/req… Read more from @PRNewswire: prnewswire.co.uk/news-releas…

In the @journal_leoh, Leila Mohaghegh and Masoud Shamaei examine the European Union's framework governing experiments on animals, focusing on Directive 2010/63/EU and its recent amendment, Delegated Directive (EU) 2024/1262. They conclude that strong legal requirements alone do not guarantee reduced use of animals. Differences in implementation across member states, inconsistent transparency, institutional constraints, and other factors continue to limit progress. U.S. agencies, including NIH, are increasingly prioritizing the development and use of non-animal methods. The most relevant lesson for the United States is that progress depends, in part, on creating the financial and institutional conditions that support their use. The authors make several recommendations that could also improve the situation in the U.S., including: 💡 Dedicated funding for non-animal methods and financial incentives to use them 💡 Expanding shared research infrastructure 💡 Addressing the biases and preferences that keep animal experimentation entrenched 💡 Introducing consistency to standards for reporting animal use (particularly when NIH is finally considering counting the animals used in funded experiments) 💡 Considering animals’ psychological well-being and social behaviors, not only their physical condition Non-animal methods already exist and continue to advance. Their impact depends on whether policies similarly advance to implement them. 🔗 doi.org/10.58590/leoh.2026.0… #AnimalWelfare #NAMs #HumanRelevantScience #SciencePolicy #NIH #3Rs #BiomedicalResearch

ICYMI: In May, @NIH highlighted the growing importance of non-animal methods (NAMs) in biomedical research, encouraging investigators to select models based on their scientific suitability, human relevance, and translational potential, rather than choosing traditional models based on historical use. NIH noted that NAMs, including human-based in vitro systems, computational models, and real-world data, can be used alone or in combination to improve study design, scientific rigor, reproducibility, and relevance to human biology. The agency has been designing funding opportunities, some of which “indicate exclusive use of human-based science or NAMs.” The agency highlighted several examples of NAMs to consider when applying for funding, such as NAMs for osteoarthritis research; using human auditory, vestibular, and chemosensory organoids to create treatments; integrating genetic, environmental, and immunological factors for autoimmune disease research; and studying short-lived and long-lived plasma cells in humans. More recent topics of interest can be found here: lnkd.in/eNuQqk6H We’re happy to see the increasing momentum in non-animal methods, which will rightly shift biomedical research toward human biology. 🔗 Read more: lnkd.in/efG56xuz

🤖 What happens when AI helps decide which experiments to pursue? Before AI guides research, we should examine what guides the AI. These recent publications and initiatives illustrate the growing role of AI in shaping biomedical research: @harrison_zhang, @james_y_zou, and team at @StanfordDBDS developed a “Virtual Biotech” with specialized AI agents designed to mirror the structure of a drug-development company, with agentic divisions spanning target discovery, clinical development, and more. In demonstrations spanning nearly 56,000 clinical trials and multiple disease areas, the system identified biological features linked to drug success, proposed therapeutic strategies, and inferred potential mechanisms of clinical trial failure. lnkd.in/gM2j7K8B Earlier this year, @yy5ccuva and colleagues from @UCSFimaging developed a deep-learning AI model that can predict cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease progression using just baseline MRI scans and basic patient demographic information. lnkd.in/eYkzH8FX In May, the @ARPA_H launched a new Intelligent Generator of Research program that aims to use AI to identify knowledge gaps and propose experiments to accelerate biomedical discovery. lnkd.in/eQmq3BeM In July, the @WHOSTP47 announced additional partnerships in the Bio Genesis Mission, a national effort to harness AI and advanced computing, with the goal of cutting in half the time it takes for a scientific discovery to reach people within the next ten years. lnkd.in/gWtEk9G8 ⚠️ AI is no doubt powerful, but we need to be asking important questions: What evidence will AI use to decide which experiments are helpful and can fill the gaps? If the underlying literature is affected by publication and animal methods bias [see work by the @TheCOLAAB], AI may scale those problems. If, however, AI is paired with rigorous systematic reviews and evidence synthesis, it could help identify the experiments most likely to generate meaningful, human-relevant insights. As #AI becomes more influential in research funding and prioritization, ensuring that it learns from the highest-quality evidence is a top priority.