Peter-Singer Prize-Doctor: “Animal models have become routine”

Most of the funds, namely 99 percent, flow into animal experimental research, according to the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Almost 60 percent of them are research without a specific order and more than 30 percent application-oriented research and prescribed medication and chemical tests. Is there greater need and more progress than in research without animal experiments?

I am sure that the knowledge gain in animal experimental research is much higher! This is particularly good in toxicology, i.e. science about toxic substances. There is research on human -based methods on the basis of human cells and data. As a result, much better predictions for humans are now possible. After all, medication is about – to predict effects and side effects. The pharmaceutical industry was the first terms and the use of animal experiments significantly reduced this. The increase in knowledge in animal experimental research is lower. Nevertheless, many funding providers, ethics commissions and scientific magazines are still focusing on it. Although it has long been refuted, animal experiments are still considered a “gold standard”.

On European level, stricter animal experimental standards were set 40 years ago. But instead of replacing animal experiments, their number even increases again. How is that possible?

“Animal models” have become routine for decades and have now been recognized culturally, economically and institutionally as legitimate test methods. The crazy thing is that their disadvantages are often ignored. There are hardly any publications in which negative results from animal experiments are reported. Authorities are still calling for test procedures with animal experiments. Nevertheless, European law forms an important ethical and scientific framework for many funding programs. This also includes the 3R principle. It stands for replacement, reduction and improvement of animal experiments. This is more relevant than ever these days. In the meantime, further criteria have been added. It is problematic that the possibility of performing animal experiments is often confused with freedom of science. Right -conservative people in particular often stamp ethically motivated criticism of animal experiments as “Woke”. Lobby groups from basic research also use this to maintain the status quo. However, this applies even to apparently progressive people who still consider animal experiments to be a suitable means to show what “bad” chemistry can do. The still traditionally male power structures in the academic area that block alternative approaches should not be underestimated.

Interview

private

Thomas Hartung is a professor of evidence -based toxicology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in the USA. From 2002 to 2008 he was the director of the European Testing Center for Animal Exercise alternatives (ECVAM). Hartung was awarded the Peter-Singer Prize on July 5 in Berlin for his commitment to animal test-free research.

What are success of alternative test methods?

The most important replacement methods are now available in three areas: first, at tests on fever triggering fabrics. There are alternative procedures for which only work with certain immune cells. Second, stimulate the skin or eyes. Here you use in-vitro models in which substances are tested on a replacement skin. Thirdly, it concerns poisonous tests for the brain and nervous system. Brain organoids are used here, i.e. artificially bred mini brain. Replacement organs are also the area in which we do a lot of research. The focus in animal experimental research is primarily technical systems such as organ-on-a-chip methods. Organs are imitated on a miniichip. Even with artificial intelligence, machine learning and mathematical models, the effectiveness of substances for people or the environment can be increasingly predicted. Of course, you can also use the knowledge that is already known. There is also the large group of OMICS technologies, in which not only individual genes, but the entire interaction of cell modules are examined.

You have received the Peter Singer Prize for your research in the area of alternative test procedures. What procedures did you develop?

Already in my doctoral thesis I suggested a test that imitates inflammation in the liver. This test is still used in industry. This was followed by work to replace fever tests on rabbits. For this I developed tests in which certain immune cells, so -called monocytes are activated. Through these procedures, the European Pharmaceutical Book Authority has only just deleted rabbit attempts from the list. When I led the European Testicular Alternatives (ECVAM) test center, 26 animal experiments were replaced by alternatives. In the meantime, they have been officially recognized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). At the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, we even developed arithmetic models that exceeded many recognized animal experiments in their effectiveness. Unfortunately, these models have hardly been used so far. They are still not familiar with too little.

In your view, what are the best strategies in order to reduce or even end the number of animal experiments in the future?

It needs better assertiveness strategies on a political and legal level and more incentives for science to develop alternative test methods. Of course, these must also be recognized by the authorities. In addition, much more must be invested in animal testing -free test methods. This means that the public is informed about failures in animal experiments. It is great that the American health authority, the environmental authority and the national health institutes (in early July 2025, editor) have announced that they will reduce the number of animal experiments. In the EU, around a million attempts on animals have been replaced by alternative methods in recent years. My big vision is a project that systematically records the effect of chemicals on our bodies and assigns special diseases. Instead of poisoning rats, it is then measured where the fabrics are actually in the body – of course animal -free.