An explainer:

The scientific process is meant to be rigourous, reliable, and designed to improve human, animal and environmental health. But something isn’t working the way it should.

Specifically for human health - one major issue is that over 90% of promising drugs fail in human trials - despite appearing successful in preclinical studies, many of which rely on animal testing.

While animals have long been used as models for human biology, they were never intended to be accurate predictors of human outcomes. Animal testing was originally introduced as a protective measure for humans, not because it could reliably forecast how humans would respond to new treatments.

However, the failure to translate preclinical research into real-world human benefits goes beyond the limitations of animal models. There are also other systemic issues within science itself.

This high failure rate is driven by multiple factors, including but not limited to:‍

1. ‍Biological differences between animals and humans
2. Flawed study design and research culture
3. External pressures that undermine science

Understanding these issues is crucial if we want to fix what’s broken and ensure science is ethical, effective, and truly beneficial for human health.

1. Biological differences between animals and humans

Despite often sharing many genes with humans, animals are biologically different in ways that can significantly impact research outcomes. Differences in genetics, metabolism, and immune responses mean that a drug or treatment that appears effective in animals may not work the same way in people- or may even cause harm.

Additionally, many human diseases do not naturally occur in animals. To study these conditions, researchers must artificially induce them in ways that rarely replicate the true complexity of the disease in humans. This mismatch can lead to misleading results, wasting time and resources on treatments that ultimately fail in human trials.

2. Flaws in study design and scientific publishing

Scientific studies should be designed to produce reliable, reproducible results, but many scientific studies cannot be reliably repeated, a problem often linked to poor study design and inadequate reporting. This issue - known as the reproducibility crisis is caused by various factors including:

Lack of Transparency and Poor Reporting: Research papers often fail to clearly document methods, data, or other key information, making it difficult for other scientists to interpret or replicate their findings (guidelines like PREPARE and ARRIVE were introduced to improve study design and reporting standards but these are not mandatory).

Bias and Gaps in Scientific Publishing: What gets published shapes scientific understanding, but systemic flaws skew the accuracy of what gets reported:

• ‍Publication Bias –Studies with positive results are more likely to be published, while negative or inconclusive findings are often ignored or buried. This creates a false perception that certain treatments are more effective than they actually are.‍
• Publication Gap –Many studies, particularly in commercial sectors like pharmaceutical development, are never made public. This prevents researchers from learning from past experiments (and can also lead to unnecessary duplication of studies, wasting time and resources).

Standardisation in Animal Studies: To maintain consistency, animal experiments are often highly standardised - but this approach creates its own set of problems:

• ‍Genetic Uniformity –Many studies use animals who are as genetically identical as possible (i.e., inbred animal strains), to reduce variability. However, this lack of genetic diversity creates a major risk - treatments tested on uniform animal populations are even less likely to be effective when applied to genetically diverse human populations. ‍
• Gender Bias –Historically, research has favoured male animals, overlooking biological differences that may significantly impact how treatments affect females. This has led to gaps in understanding, particularly for conditions that affect genders differently.

Environmental & Biological Factors: Even when animal studies are standardised, small environmental differences - such as housing conditions, diet, stress levels, or age - can significantly alter results. This means that findings from one lab may not be reproducible in another, further undermining confidence in animal-based research.

3.  External pressures that undermine science

Systemic pressures, many beyond the control of individual scientists, often dictate what research gets funded, how studies are conducted, and which findings get published. These pressures create an environment where scientific rigour is often compromised in favour of career advancement, institutional goals, and industry interests.

Key external pressures include:

‍Funding & Publication Pressure: Researchers are pushed to secure grants and publish frequently, fuelling the “publish or perish” culture where scientists are incentivised to publish frequently in high-profile journals to secure promotions and grants. This pressure often prioritises quantity over quality, undermining scientific rigour.‍

Funding and Regulatory Constraints: Research agendas are often influenced by funding availability (i.e., current government funding priorities) and regulatory requirements, which may not align with the most scientifically rigourous or ethically sound practices.

Industry Bias in Research: The source of funding can introduce bias. For example, systematic reviews show that studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are more likely to have flawed study designs and pro-industry conclusions - e.g in research on calcium-channel blockers, 51% of industry-sponsored authors supported their safety, while 0% of independent authors did.

Conclusion: A broken current system that needs fixing

Animal models are not the only reason science is not delivering the results we expect. The entire current system - from study design to research culture to regulatory frameworks - needs an overhaul.

Science should be ethical, transparent, and focused on real-world human health outcomes. Instead of relying on outdated methods and entrenched biases, we need to embrace modern, human-relevant research approaches that improve scientific accuracy and public trust.

The conversation isn’t just about whether animals “work” as models - it’s about why science itself isn’t working as it should. If we want real progress, for animals, humans and the environment, then we need to rethink how science is done, altogether.

We can only look at transforming the way we do Science in Aotearoa New Zealand with the help of those progressive scientists, institutes and organisations that are trying their best to deliver scientific progress without harming animals under the current stifling conditions.

All of us want a future where animals are not harmed in science. Only together will we make this happen.

If you believe in better science, if you care about compassion, if you want to see real change for animals used in research - welcome to BAR.