UK unveils roadmap for replacing animal testing
- Reference: 1762866821
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/11/11/uk_gov_animal_testing_alt_plans/
- Source link:
Phasing out animal testing in science was one of the UK government's manifesto commitments, and its Science Minister, Lord Vallance, aims to accelerate this process as other methods become available.
"Nobody in our country of animal lovers wants to see suffering and our plan will support work to end animal testing wherever possible and roll out alternatives as soon as it is safe and effective to do so," he said.
[1]
The [2]plan includes DNA-based laboratory methods and computational models to replace animal testing for detecting contamination in human medicines. By late 2026, AI and in vitro techniques will substitute for skin and eye irritation tests, with Botox potency assessments moving from mice to cell-based assays by 2027.
[3]
[4]
According to government, there will also be a reduction in pharmacokinetic studies, "which track how a drug moves through the body over time – on dogs and non-human primates" by 2030.
The strategy is backed by £60 million in funding to smooth the path to regulatory approval for new alternatives. Another £15.9 million is coming from the Medical Research Council, Innovate UK and the Wellcome Trust, used "to advance promising 'human in vitro models'." This includes technology such as organ-on-a-chip systems, which enable researchers to see what drugs will do to people without using animals.
[5]
The UK government said "five teams across the UK will focus on human in vitro disease models of the liver, brain, cancer, pain and blood vessels."
As well as organ-on-a-chip systems, the strategy also gives 3D bioprinted tissues as an example of an alternative to animal testing and checking the toxicity of substances.
AI inevitably features, too: utilizing machine learning to analyze vast amounts of information about molecules to predict the effectiveness of new medicines, employed as a tool by experienced researchers.
[6]
An end to testing will not happen overnight, and there are regulatory requirements that drugs must undergo trials with animals before being tested on humans. In addition, mimicking the complexity of many organisms through technology is not straightforward and will likely require years or decades of development before being accepted by regulators.
Barney Reed, science and policy manager - Animals in Science at animal charity the RSPCA, welcomed the roadmap, noting that it "sets a clear ambition towards eliminating animal use."
However, Reed added a note of caution: "If supported and implemented effectively, the strategy should create a good foundation for accelerating the replacement of animals, which will be positive news for animals, science and society."
The "If" is key here. While momentum has gained pace in recent years, years of work (and investment) are required to remove animal testing from the drug development and regulatory environment.
[7]Scientists develop AI algorithms to hunt for cancer-fighting antibodies
[8]MIT breakthrough means there's no material too weird for 3D printing
[9]Superintelligence probably not happening, but AI will still reshape society, expert panel says
[10]UK rejoins the EU's €100B Horizon sci-tech funding program
Richard Torbett, Chief Executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), said: "Patient safety relies on robust evidence to develop new medicines and vaccines.
"While the science does not yet exist to fully eliminate animal testing, industry has already made significant strides in reducing, replacing and refining their use and remains committed to driving further advances at pace."
Nicola Perrin, Chief Executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities, applauded the "ambitious roadmap to accelerate the uptake of alternative methods to research involving animals."
"However, importantly, there's also a continued commitment to the use of animals in research where no other options are available. This continues to contribute to many medical advances which save and improve the lives of millions of people.
"It is critical that this isn't put at risk." ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aRNrpankjdKtgQOODnQywgAAAVQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/animal-testing-to-be-phased-out-faster-as-uk-unveils-roadmap-for-alternative-methods
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRNrpankjdKtgQOODnQywgAAAVQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRNrpankjdKtgQOODnQywgAAAVQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aRNrpankjdKtgQOODnQywgAAAVQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aRNrpankjdKtgQOODnQywgAAAVQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/02/scientists_ai_algorithms_cancer/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/15/3d_printers_mit/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/11/ai_experts_forecast/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/uk_rejoins_eus_85_billion/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Testing on people
> They do it because otherwise the drugs get tested on humans.
What do you think a clinical trial is?
Re: Testing on people
In the UK, that is very much your every encounter with NHS, unless of course you won postcode lottery.
Okay. So, the idea is, that at some point in the future, a doctor will approach a volunteer with a syringe, and the doctor will say: "This substance has never been in a living organism before. Nothing above bacteria, anyway. Not once in the whole history of life. But our simulations say it should be safe, and the AI agrees. I'm going to put it into you now. You okay with this?"
And this is not going to be a problem? Is the plan to explain it in a somewhat more reassuring way, and that will make it okay? Or to pay that guy really well? Or am I missing something?
(Anon, because there are people out there that are just itching to misinterpret a post like this).
Because
a) there are a lot of people out there who will say yes for money when it comes to eventual human testing
b) for many conditions, trying something new is the better alternative to there being no treatment at all
No the idea is for the medical industry to move abroad as part of the UK's continual de-industrialisation program.
All anybody seems to be proposing in this framework is the replacement of regulatory tests on existing substances. We only test stuff like botox potency and skin irritation on animals because that happens to be what is in the legislation. There are often much more effective tests which can be done using tissue samples from real humans, or individual cells, or in a few cases using computer modelling.
Certainly as our ability to develop artificial tissues and more advanced computer models grow there is a likelihood that non-animal tests will expand into more novel substances, and "at some point in the future" a "volunteer" will likely have grown up in an environment where they are less instinctively scared of that than perhaps you are.
Animal testing itself is a very imperfect way of predicting what will happen to people, since there are significant and quite possibly deadly differences between animals and us, and even when things have been tested on humans, they haven't been tested on you, so there's always a risk it will affect you differently from other people. The point is as much to allow us to do the most effective testing as it is to save the animals.
You wouldn't download a car
You wouldn't 3D print an animal.
Does that mean I have to stop bringing the new Kereberos with me to work ?
I talk to the wee fuzzball, to test my thinking, in a sort of rubber duck debugging, but with puppy treats.
They will be replaced by pixie dust. Also magic pixie dust. Followed by super pixie dust.
Testing on people
The drug companies are yelling "whoopee". They don't want to test on animals. It's messy and costs money. They do it because otherwise the drugs get tested on humans. They do it because of Thalidomide. Sickening how our masters deliberately make us all less safe.