A number of non-animal technologies are already available (see below) and making a difference, but there's still much to do. So we’re encouraging faster take up of the humane alternatives that exist, and urging industry and government to help speed up the development of new ones.
This isn't about stopping important scientific research. Instead, we want to see scientists develop and adopt advanced humane methods and approaches. This is something the public clearly wants too, with eight out of 10 UK adults agreeing more needs to be done to speed up the development and uptake of alternatives to replace animal experiments.
A positive development
At the end of 2025, the UK Government launched a new national strategy aimed at replacing the use of animals in science. It contains many of the actions we have long called for, and if properly implemented should make a positive difference in speeding up the move away from animal use.
Watch our video explaining why it's important to work together to keep on phasing out the use of lab animals.
What are the benefits of phasing out animal use?
- With tens of millions of animals used in research and testing around the world each year, the development of non-animal methods will significantly reduce lab animal suffering, distress and lasting harm.
- Challenging the status quo can produce better science. Some current experiments and tests are poorly designed and not carried out well. There are doubts about the usefulness of many animal 'models' and concerns about how well the results are analysed and reported. Open debate about the current situation and possible alternatives can bring about improvements in scientific research.
- Using human cells (for example, organ-on-a-chip and organoids) to test medicines and treatments for humans can have more accurate results than using animals, and studies can often be done faster.
- Once these technologies are in place, there are economic benefits – for example, using human cells to predict the toxic effects of drugs on humans more accurately and quickly will reduce the cost of drug tests.
Non-animal alternatives
It's increasingly possible to replace and avoid animal use in research and testing by using new non-animal methodologies. New technologies and approaches are being developed all the time. Here are some that are currently attracting a lot of focus.
Isolated human cells and tissues
Organ-on-a-chip: These are small plastic devices containing human cells that can mimic what happens in our bodies. They look at how medicines may affect the cells of organs such as the lung, liver, stomach, gut and brain. Increasingly, they can be linked together to see how different organs ‘talk’ to each other. The aim is to link multiple chips to model the whole human body.
Organoids: These miniature models of organs are made from tiny balls of cells. They’re kept in a gel and can live for months. Organoids grown so far include tiny replicas of parts of the brain, colon, pancreas, eye and prostate. They’ve been used to study infections and diseases such as Covid-19, cystic fibrosis and some cancers. It's possible they'll be able to personalise treatments more effectively. For example, cells could be taken from a cancerous tumour and tested to tell the best drugs and dosage for that patient.
Computer modelling
Computer models, often aided by powerful AI, can help to predict how diseases will develop, how drugs will work in humans, and how chemicals used in products such as paint and pesticides will affect us and the environment. They’re based on decades’ worth of testing results and can simulate the way our bodies work by creating a virtual cell, organ or human.
Human volunteers
Certain tests can be carried out by safely ‘microdosing’ human volunteers. With their informed consent, they’re given a very small amount of a drug and monitored to see the effect.
Not doing the experiment at all
We urge all scientists, companies and regulators of medicines and chemicals to review carefully whether and how animal use could be avoided.
Current challenges
- Non-animal methods are providing opportunities to replace the use of animals in an increasing range of experiments, in particular those looking at specific types of cells or organs. However, it's currently harder to develop these methods to look at more than just one type of cell or organ – for example, the immune system, which is a complex process involving components from around the body, or when looking at how something affects human behaviours.
- Scientists and regulators often have well-established ways of working, so it can take persuasion and knowledge-sharing for them to change their practices. They may not know about alternatives or how to access or start using them, so information and training is needed.
- Developing alternative methods, and showing that they work, takes time and resources. What's more, many regulations on product safety require information from animal tests. Getting these tests replaced takes time, especially when many countries are involved.
Working to phase out lab animal use
We believe everyone should want to reach a point where important science is done without causing harm to sentient animals – animals who can experience sensations and emotions.
We work in the UK and internationally to bring together people from different disciplines to collaborate, knowledge-share, and increase awareness. We work to influence people working in universities and in industry, and we support those sitting on animal ethics committees. We also talk to senior civil servants and MPs and other key decision-makers and law-makers.
To make the fastest progress, we need everyone involved in the regulation, care and use of lab animals to play their part and work together. We support and encourage governments, scientists, funders, regulators and drug and chemical companies, both nationally and internationally, to speed up the phasing out of animal research and testing.
Phasing out animal use entirely will require increased funding, support for people and infrastructure, and a rethink about the types of tests required by law. The process for validating humane alternatives needs to be clearer and more streamlined. All of this needs leadership and commitment.
