Viewpoint: No, we should not follow RFK, Jr.’s recommendation and quickly phase out biomedical research animal testing 

In recent months, the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health have announced new initiatives to reduce and replace animal testing in biomedical research. Central to these efforts are “new approach methodologies,” such as lab-grown human-based models and computational technologies, promoted as more modern and human-relevant.

As a biomedical researcher combining advanced mouse models with human-based and computational approaches, I argue that biomedical discovery and drug development require greater investment in refining and complementing — not replacing — animal models.

Broadly reducing investment in animal models now, including the expertise, infrastructure, and ethical safeguards currently in place, would not only undermine critical progress but also leave us unprepared when complex medical and safety issues appear in the future.

…

Related on the SLP

“Hit the brakes”: Anthropic warns the race to superintelligence could spawn internet-seizing AI swarms—and empower authoritarians. Here’s how to stop it. How misguided federal actions are damaging the nation’s biomedical research—and how to push back

Viewpoint: Dubious environmental fears: Why the AI buildout is critical to America’s ecological future

Vitamin D, omega-3 fish oil and glucosamine supplements could cause brain damage 

Child-monitoring apps: When the cure is worse than the harm—and how the technology could be tweaked

In fact, investing in and complementing modern animal models now can reduce future animal use. When preclinical studies better predict human outcomes, fewer animals are needed for repetitive experiments that ultimately fail to translate.

Moving forward, we shouldn’t be choosing between animal models and human-based approaches — but rather integrating both as needed to best study human conditions.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here