The Evolving Landscape of Biomedical Models
In today’s polarized research environment, a false dichotomy has emerged between traditional animal models and new approach methodologies (NAMs). While NAMs represent exciting technological advances, framing them as outright replacements for animal testing overlooks the complex reality of biomedical research. As someone who has worked with mouse models for over two decades, I’ve witnessed how both approaches offer distinct, often complementary insights that are essential for scientific progress.
Understanding the NAM Revolution
New approach methodologies encompass in vitro models like organoids, computational modeling, and chemical techniques that assess biological interactions outside living organisms. These innovations are driving significant related innovations in how we approach disease modeling and drug discovery. The principles behind NAMs aren’t entirely new—researchers have long sought human-relevant alternatives to animal testing—but recent technological breakthroughs have accelerated their development and adoption.
What’s changed is the substantial push from regulators and funders worldwide. The growing emphasis on NAM implementation reflects both ethical considerations and the potential for these methods to address specific research questions more efficiently. However, this shift has sometimes come at the expense of balanced scientific evaluation.
The Unmatched Complexity of Living Systems
While NAMS excel at modeling specific biological processes at molecular or cellular levels, they currently cannot replicate how genes function throughout an entire human body, how organs interact, or how diseases progress systemically. This limitation becomes particularly relevant when considering recent technology developments in complex disease research.
Animal models, particularly those enhanced by technologies like CRISPR-Cas9, continue to provide irreplaceable insights into systemic biological processes. Through targeted genome editing, researchers have discovered how some human genes affect men and women differently, how gene effects change across life stages, and examples of genetic pleiotropy where single genes influence multiple traits.
The Validation Challenge
A critical issue facing NAM adoption involves validation. The U.S. National Institutes of Health’s Complement-ARIE program, which provides millions in funding for NAM development, doesn’t require researchers to verify their methods using living animals or human participants. This creates a significant gap in our understanding of whether these models accurately represent complex biological systems.
Meanwhile, the broader industry developments in research methodology continue to evolve, highlighting the need for robust validation frameworks. The establishment of the NIH Office of Research Innovation, Validation, and Application presents an opportunity to address this challenge by mandating proper validation protocols.
Translational Research Realities
The high failure rate of drug candidates in clinical trials—approximately 86%—has sometimes been attributed to limitations in animal models. However, this perspective overlooks other contributing factors that affect all research models. Problems with study design, including oversimplified disease models, inadequate group sizes, or insufficient randomization, can compromise results regardless of the model used.
These issues are particularly relevant given current market trends in healthcare and pharmaceutical development. The pressure to accelerate drug discovery must be balanced with methodological rigor across all model types.
A More Nuanced Approach to Model Selection
Rather than asking whether to use NAMs or animal models, researchers should focus on a more fundamental question: Does the model faithfully represent the biological system being studied? This perspective acknowledges that different research questions require different approaches, and that model selection should be driven by scientific needs rather than ideological positions.
The most productive path forward recognizes that both NAMs and animal models have important roles to play. As noted in the intensifying scientific discussion, we need frameworks that allow researchers to objectively select the most appropriate model for their specific research question while considering ethical implications.
Future Directions and Considerations
Looking ahead, several developments could help bridge the divide between modeling approaches. The NIH’s Standardized Organoid Modeling Center, announced recently, could produce much-needed guidelines for NAM validation. Meanwhile, continuing industry developments in both animal modeling and NAM technologies promise to enhance both approaches’ capabilities.
For rapidly advancing treatments involving RNA therapies, genome editing, or CAR-T-cell therapy, initial testing in living animals remains essential until NAMs can demonstrate reliable representation of human biology at the organ or body level. This cautious approach acknowledges both the potential of new technologies and the realities of biological complexity.
Conclusion: Toward Integrated Research Strategies
The most promising future for biomedical research lies not in choosing between NAMs and animal models, but in developing integrated strategies that leverage the strengths of both approaches. All models—whether NAMs or animal-based—should be continuously refined, updated, or replaced as new tools and data emerge that better match human systems.
As the field navigates these market trends and methodological debates, the fundamental requirement remains unchanged: experimental results from any research tool must be biologically sound, relevant, and reproducible. By maintaining this focus while embracing technological advances, the research community can advance human health most effectively while responsibly addressing ethical considerations.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.
