Abstract
Animal models have played a foundational role in advancing biomedical and surgical science, yet their use remains ethically complex and frequently contested. This editorial argues that animal research is both scientifically indispensable and morally constrained, and that responsible innovation requires holding these dual truths simultaneously. While emerging technologies such as organoids, micro-physiological systems, and computational modeling offer promising alternatives, they cannot yet replicate the integrated physiology necessary for many translational and surgical investigations. The principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (3Rs) are re-framed here, not as regulatory obligations but as a rigorous scientific framework that enhances methodological quality and ethical integrity. The commentary further contends that regulatory compliance alone is insufficient; instead, a culture of internal accountability and public transparency is essential for maintaining trust and legitimacy. The future of ethical biomedical research lies not in the abrupt elimination of animal models, but in their progressive obsolescence through sustained investment in scientifically valid alternatives. Ethical rigour is therefore not a barrier to scientific progress — it is a catalyst for it.
Keywords: Animal research ethics; 3Rs principle; Biomedical research; Surgical science; Animal welfare; Research oversight; Organ on chip models; Translational research; Ethical frameworks; Public trust in science
References
- Pound P and Bracken MB. “Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research?”. British Medical Journal 360 (2018): j4935.
- van der Worp HB., et al. “Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies?”. PLoS Medicine 7.3 (2010): e1000245.
- Seok J., et al. “Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110.9 (2013): 3507-3512.
- Russell WMS. “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique”. Methuen: London (1959): 238.
- Festing MF and Altman DG. “Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals”. ILAR Journal 43.4 (2002): 244-258.
- Lilley E, Hawkins P and Jennings M. “A 'Road Map' Toward Ending Severe Suffering of Animals Used in Research and Testing”. ATLA 42 (2014): 267-272.
- Ormandy EH and Schuppli CA. “Public attitudes toward animal research: A review”. Animals 4.3 (2014): 391-408.
- Marx U., et al. “Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing”. ALTEX 33.3 (2016): 272-321.
- Ingber DE. “Human organs on chips for disease modeling, drug development, and personalized medicine”. Nature Reviews Genetics 23.8 (2022): 467-491.
- National Research Council (USA). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th Edition. National Academies Press: Washington, DC (2011).
- Balls M. “Alternatives to Laboratory Animals: Trends in Replacement and the Three Rs”. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 50.1 (2022): 10-26.
- Kimura H., et al. “Advancements in microphysiological systems: Exploring organoids and organ-on-a-chip technologies in drug development—Focus on pharmacokinetics related organs”. Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics 60 (2025): 101046.
- Vinken M. “3Rs toxicity testing and disease modeling projects in the European Horizon 2020 research and innovation program”. EXCLI Journal 19 (2020): 775-784.
- European Commission. Sixth Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Statistics on the Number of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union (COM2010). European Commission (2010).