A recent op-ed in The Hill praising the National Institutes of Health’s new initiative to promote human-based technologies as a “major victory for animal ethics in science” oversimplifies a far more complex research landscape. While the piece correctly identifies growing support and development of innovative, non-animal approaches, it is misleading in its framing and overstates what this federal initiative actually signals about the future of animal research.

Animal studies remain essential to both basic and translational science. From mapping brain circuitry to developing life-saving vaccines, the use of animal models has helped scientists uncover core biological mechanisms and test therapies with a degree of whole-organism complexity that no alternative system can yet match. Research involving animals has been directly responsible for major advances in treating cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes and countless other diseases.

To suggest that NIH is ready to “leave outdated animal experiments behind” is to paint an unrealistic picture of the current scientific landscape. It implies that non-animal alternatives are fully capable of replacing animal studies across the board. In reality, these technologies — while exciting and valuable — are still evolving and have significant limitations. This kind of oversimplification does a disservice not only to the scientific community but also to public understanding.

Read more.

Published July 13, 2025 By Alissa Hatfield and Naomi Charalambakis, Opinon Contributors,The Hill