'Organs on a chip' is one of many alternatives to animal testing

The technology and other innovations could save animal lives — and ours.

- F.D. Flam

There's one area of surprising agreement in the often adversarial relationship between conservatives and the scientific community: the need to phase out animal testing in biomedical research.

The new leaders of both the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration have said they plan to reduce their use in federally funded research, continuing an effort started in the Biden administration.

Technology is helping to bring about change with advances that allow scientists to create structures from human cells that can mimic our organs. In some contexts, those cells work better for studying diseases and drug side effects than traditional experiments that lead to the deaths of millions of rodents, dogs and primates every year.

The primary argument for using animals in research has been their biological similarity to humans, which allows scientists to observe diseases and treatments that are not easily replicated with other methods. Animal safety testing is sometimes required before human trials can begin.

Traditional opponents of such testing have been animal rights activists and others, whom critics have sometimes labeled as anti-science. But raising ethical concerns about such research isn't anti-science. In fact, failing to acknowledge them ignores what science has shown us about animals' emotional complexity, including altruism among rodents and evidence that they are sentient and experience pain, suffering and fear just as we do.