BioPharmaTrend
Latest Insights
Companies
  • Companies Directory
  • Case Studies
Newsletter
About
  • At a Glance
  • Our Team
  • Advisory Board
  • Citations and Press Coverage
  • Partner Events Calendar
  • Advertise with Us
 
 Subscribe 
Sign in
  • AI in Bio
  • Tech Giants
  • Next-Gen Tools
  • Biotech Ventures
  • Business Intelligence

  Business Intellilgence

How Organoids and AI Are Replacing Animal Testing

by Illia Terpylo  (contributor )   •   July 18, 2025

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by Contributors are their own and do not represent those of their employers, or BiopharmaTrend.com.
Contributors are fully responsible for assuring they own any required copyright for any content they submit to BiopharmaTrend.com. This website and its owners shall not be liable for neither information and content submitted for publication by Contributors, nor its accuracy.

Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook

As FDA & NIH formalize support for non-animal testing, organ-on-a-chip, organoids, and ML-based toxicity models are being integrated into preclinical workflows by both startups and established pharma.

On April 10th, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made an announcement that may reshape the landscape of medical research. In a historic policy shift, the world's leading public health regulator unveiled plans to significantly reduce—and potentially eliminate—animal testing for monoclonal antibodies and other drugs. Breaking away from decades-old practices, the FDA is adopting “New Approach Methods” (NAMs) that include AI-driven toxicity models, organ-on-chip systems, and human organoids. These models are built to more precisely replicate human physiological responses compared to traditional animal testing.

The agency plans to initially implement the strategy with respect to investigational new drugs (IND), favouring the NAMs data-rich applications for a streamlined review. Additionally, the FDA is collaborating closely with other federal agencies, starting with a focused pilot program for monoclonal antibody testing launching in the coming year.

Also earlier this month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mirrored FDA's step by significantly reducing grant funding for research solely dependent on animal testing. Dr. Nicole Kleinstreuer, Acting NIH Deputy Director for Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, deemed this decision as necessary for public health, declaring that current objectives "cannot be fulfilled using outdated animal-based models that fail to translate to human outcomes."

Apart from increased safety testing efficacy, there is a financial incentive. A 2022 study of an organ-on-a-chip applied to test for drug-induced liver injury found it could earn more than $3B annually for the pharmaceutical industry.

But what led to this change?

In this article: Back to the Future — The Numbers Behind the Ethics — Non-Animal Realm — AI-Based Toxicity Prediction — Organ-on-a-Chip — Epilogue


Back to the Future

Humanity’s relationship with animals began long before formal science. As early as 17,000 years ago, cave paintings in places like Lascaux, France, suggest that early humans carefully observed the animals they lived alongside. Instead of idle sketches they may have been an early form of biological recording. While hunting, early humans gained comparative anatomical insights, laying rudimentary foundations for medicine and survival.


Lascaux painting. Сourtesy of Prof Saxx—Public Domain

Over the millennia, ancient civilizations like Egypt and China began cataloguing natural remedies, many derived from animals, though without clear records of systematic testing. Nevertheless, experimentation likely occurred. In Egypt, the Ebers Papyrus listed hundreds of animal-based treatments. Later in Greece, Aristotle was acknowledged as the first to elevate mere observation into controlled manipulation of animals. An ancient Greek philosopher turned physician Galen later conducted primitive therapeutic trials on roosters and twelve centuries later a famous Arab surgeon Ibn Zuhr tested surgical techniques on animals before applying them to humans.

  • With the First Industrial Revolution (circa 1760–1840), economic expansion fueled a surge in human and animal welfare—and scientific curiosity. Tools like the stethoscope and blood pressure gauges emerged alongside medical physiology. Animals (dogs, pigs, and rodents) became subjects of these technological inquiries.
  • The Second Industrial Revolution (late 19th to early 20th century) underlined a milestone change. The growth of the synthetic chemistry industry demanded rapid screening of compounds, spurring the systematic use of animals as human surrogates. Safety, efficacy, and mechanism of action all required preclinical animal studies. This era birthed toxicology and pharmacology, and with it, specialized institutions and companies dedicated to breeding research animals.
  • Post–World War II science expanded into what some call the Third Industrial Revolution. In this period, in vivo and later in vitro tissue animal testing became deeply embedded in drug development and biomedical research. Rodents, dogs, cats, and rabbits populated labs, powering advances in endocrinology, toxicology, pathology, and more.
  • By the 1980s, animal bioassays proliferated thanks to improved surgical techniques, telemetry, and miniaturization of sensors. Newly introduced conscious, acclimated animal models replaced anesthetized ones.

Yet, despite progress, a recurring question remained whether animals could truly predict human outcomes.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the molecular revolution began to reshape biomedical research. Scientists pivoted from whole-animal models to molecular and cellular systems. DNA sequencing, target-directed drug discovery, and in vitro assays began replacing traditional bioassays. This reflected a transition from phenotype-based observation to mechanism-driven testing.

Then, the 21st century resulted in the Fourth Industrial Revolution in life sciences, driven by genetics. Following the Human Genome Project and the rise of CRISPR and other gene-editing technologies, genetically altered (GA) animal models spiked in use. Mice, rats, and fish became instrumental in modeling human diseases, enabling scientists to insert human genes and disease mutations for study. These models helped refine drug targets and reduce the need for prolonged toxicology studies, especially via specialized strains like the P53 knockout mouse.

Beginning with the formation of 19th-century animal protection societies, the movement culminated in the 1966 US Laboratory Animal Welfare Act and similar international laws introducing formal oversight.

With the introduction of the 3Rs—Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement—ethical standards became embedded in biomedical research. But new technology brought paradoxes—while molecular tools and in silico computational models reduced animal use, GA technology increased it, albeit in different species and for more targeted purposes.


To read the rest of this article, upgrade to a BiopharmaTrend Pro subscription.

Gain full access to all of our deep dives and content archives.

 Upgrade to Pro 

Already a member? Sign in here.
Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook

BiopharmaTrend.com

Where Tech Meets Bio
mail  Newsletter
in  LinkedIn
x  X
rss  RSS Feed

About


  • What we do
  • Press & Citations
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies Policy
  • Disclaimer

Topics


  • News
  • AI in Bio
  • Tech Giants
  • Next-Gen Tools
  • Biotech Ventures

Explore


  • Premium Insights
  • Business Intelligence
  • Companies
  • Events
  • Authors

Partner


  • Sponsorship
  • Editorial Calendar

© WTMB Research & Media, S.L. (WTMB Group)   2026
We use cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Read more details in our cookies policy.