Animal models have been crucial to the advancement of biomedical science for decades. They have aided researchers in understanding the mechanisms of disease as well as given the ability to test treatments before they are introduced to humans. As rules and regulations are changing under the FDA to move towards less animal research, it is critical to understand why animals have been used for so long and where their main limitations lie. Discovering what their main limitations are allows us to understand where the gaps in that research exist and why alternative methods are now being developed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the biggest pros to animal models is their similarity to humans. Many mammals share key biological pathways, organ systems, and even cellular processes with humans. Rodents have been shown to share large percentages of the same genome as us which allows us to study human diseases like cancer, diabetes, and neurodegenerative diseases on a functioning organism that reacts very similarly to us. This allows us to ask and answer questions that we would not be able to by studying human cells in isolation. The second advantage is the ability to see whole body responses to disease, where multiple systems interact in ways that cannot be reproduced in vitro or in a computer simulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A third strength of animal models is that researchers can genetically manipulate them. Techniques like CRISPR editing, knockout models, and transgenic lines allow scientists to create animals that carry specific human disease mutations. These models help researchers study how individual genes influence disease development and allow them to test new treatment strategies under controlled genetic conditions. Finally, animal studies are necessary for early-stage safety testing since experiments involving toxicity, reproduction, or developmental effects cannot be ethically performed on humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even with all the strengths there are many weaknesses to consider. One major weakness is that results from animal models often fail to translate to humans because their bodies are different from ours in important ways, including differences in metabolism, immune function, and brain structure. Another weakness is the ethical concerns, since research can involve pain, stress, and long-term discomfort even under regulation. In addition, the administration of animal facilities contains high costs such as breeding, housing, and care, and the research process itself can be time-consuming. The final weakness is that many human diseases cannot be accurately reproduced in animals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because of these weaknesses, the scientific community has started to shift toward alternative methods such as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). New Approach Methodologies are rapidly and constantly changing how scientists evaluate drug safety and the toxicity of chemicals by reducing reliance on animal testing. These approaches use human-derived cellular systems and artificial intelligence to produce accurate and ethical predictions, while also being intended to better replicate human physiology and improve the translation of laboratory findings into real-world uses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One major development of NAMs is the usage of microfluidic organs-on-chips and 3D organoids. These are made from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are created by transforming adult human cells into a stem cell like state that allows them to differentiate into different organ types. Organoids are self-organizing 3D cell cultures that mimic the functions of real organs, while organs-on-chips use microfluidic systems to stimulate blood flow, mechanical forces, and cell to cell interactions. All of these systems provide a physiology that is more environmentally relevant compared to animal models since they are built from human cells and can accurately replicate behaviors of humans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition to experimental models, computational approaches and artificial intelligence are becoming essential tools within the field of toxicology. These systems use large datasets from human clinical data, experiments, and chemical databases to predict toxicological outcomes without the usage of live testing. Machine learning models can identify patterns that link chemical properties to biological effects, which enables the prediction of outcomes such as liver injury or skin sensitivity. The integration of computational models and laboratory NAMs accelerates drug development while also reducing costs and ethical concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite these advancements, current NAMs still face biological and technical limitations. These systems are considered reductionists because they isolate specific tissues or pathways rather than capturing the complexity of the whole human system. They also struggle to replicate interactions between systems such as endocrine signaling and immune responses, as well as long-term processes like aging. In addition, variability in iPSC-derived models and lack of standardization across labs remain key challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In conclusion, animal models have played a foundational role in biomedical research, but their weaknesses have made it clear why alternative methods are being developed. New Approach Methodologies represent significant advancements by using human-derived cells, advanced systems, and computational modeling to improve the accuracy and ethics of drug testing. Although they are not perfect replacements, these technologies have the potential to reduce reliance on animal testing and reshape the future of biomedical research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kwon, D. (2026). The age of animal experiments is waning. Where will science go next?<\/em> Nature, 650, 812\u2013814. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/d41586-026-00563-3<\/p>\n\n\n\n Takahashi, K., & Yamanaka, S. (2006). Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse fibroblasts. Cell, 126<\/em>(4), 663\u2013676.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Esch, E. W., Bahinski, A., & Huh, D. (2015). Organs-on-chips at the frontiers of drug discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 14<\/em>(4), 248\u2013260<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shinozawa, T., et al. (2021). High-fidelity drug-induced liver injury screening using human organoids.\u00a0Gastroenterology, 160<\/em>, 831\u2013846.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Marti\u0107-Kehl, M. I., Schibli, R., & Schubiger, P. A. (2012). Can animal data predict human outcome? Problems and pitfalls of translational animal research. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 39<\/em>(9), 1492\u20131496. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00259-012-2175-z<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perlman, R. L. (2016). Mouse models of human disease: An evolutionary perspective. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2016<\/em>(1), 170\u2013176. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/emph\/eow014<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Pound, P., & Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. (2018). Improving the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of animal research. BMJ, 360<\/em>, j4935. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.j4935<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vandamme, T. F. (2014). Use of rodents as models of human diseases. Journal of Pharmacy and BioAllied Sciences, 6<\/em>(1), 2\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/0975-7406.124301<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Animal models have been crucial to the advancement of biomedical science for decades. They have aided researchers in understanding the mechanisms of disease as well as given the ability to test treatments before they are introduced to humans. As rules and regulations are changing under the FDA to move towards less animal research, it is… <\/p>\n