Research Modernization NOW

Written by Emily R. Trunnell, Ph.D.
January 2025

Public biomedical research funding needs reform

Consolidation, reorganization, decreased funding, increased funding, more risk-taking, less bureaucracy, meta-research, commercialization, oversight boards, lottery systems, and more focus on practical application—what do these ideas have in common? These concepts are among the proposals suggested by policy experts, researchers, and economists to improve the function of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

There is broad agreement that NIH, the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, needs improvement. Unlike many other federal agencies, NIH is not required to account for its spending systematically or through evidence-based evaluations. The agency provides no clear metrics for the return on investment—or lack thereof—to the public for the billions in taxpayer funds it is allocated. Though NIH’s primary goal is to “enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability,”² its actions often fail to meet these objectives.

Statistics reveal that up to 89% of preclinical research may be irreproducible,³ 95% of new drugs fail in clinical trials,⁴ and at the last estimate, 90% of basic science fails to result in meaningful advances in human health.⁵

These abysmal outcomes stem from both agency-specific shortcomings—such as conservative decision making, excessive regulatory burden, investigator homogeny, and an overemphasis on mechanistic research rather than practical application—and systematic shortcomings of the scientific enterprise as a whole, including inaccessibility of findings, academic incentive structures, replication crises, and research misconduct. What has failed to be sufficiently addressed is the transformative potential that transitioning away from animal experimentation could have on moving the needle from stagnation to progress.

Shifting the paradigm

Extensive scientific evidence over the last several decades highlights the fundamental flaws of experiments on animals, which divert monetary and intellectual resources from more reliable and relevant methodologies. Intrinsic biological and genetic differences among species contribute to inescapable problems in extrapolating results from other animals to humans, even in the best-controlled and best-executed study designs.^6–8 Coupled with the increasing development and implementation of non-animal technologies and society’s growing rejection of experiments on animals,⁹ there is a compelling case for decision-makers to plan for the phase-out of animal experimentation—a step the U.S. has yet to take.

Our new report, Research Modernization NOW, outlines just such a roadmap. It lays out a comprehensive, common-sense strategy for optimizing our nation’s investment in biomedical research. By ending funding for poorly translatable experiments on animals and investing in evidence-based research relevant to humans.

Formerly the Research Modernization Deal, Research Modernization NOW has been updated to reflect recent policy changes, new scientific findings, updated economic projections, and an increased sense of urgency in enacting its recommendations.

The Research Modernization NOW plan includes nonsequential, actionable recommendations, each capable of independently transforming the research landscape.

End animal use in research areas in which animals have been demonstrated to be poor models of humans and their use has impeded scientific and medical progress.
Conduct systematic reviews of the efficacy of animal use to identify additional areas in which non-animal methods are available or animal use has failed to protect human health and can, therefore, be ended.
Redirect funds from animal studies to reliable, non-animal methods.
Implement a harm-benefit analysis system for animal studies that includes an ethical perspective and consideration of lifelong harm inflicted on animals.
Educate the scientific community about the benefits of non-animal approaches and train scientists to use them.

Proposed reforms to NIH’s structure and function, and science more generally, will be supported and strengthened by embracing a transition to human-relevant, non-animal research. These methodologies are innovative and disruptive to the status quo, which has been long entrenched in poorly translatable experiments on animals that often yield conservative, incremental advances due to their inherent limitations in replicating human biology. Human biology-based research—such as that which uses advanced in vitro, computational, and non-invasive imaging methods—allows researchers to test their hypotheses in systems that reflect their target organism (humans) and maximize the potential for transformative discoveries.

Transitioning to human-based research will rebuild public trust in science by increasing the reliability and applicability of scientific findings to society, providing the public with a greater return on investment. This aligns research practices with societal values, showing a commitment to innovation and compassion.

The transformation proposed in Research Modernization NOW can be initiated today. Without it, research funded by U.S. taxpayers will continue to fail to provide the discoveries and applications needed to protect and enhance human health.

Research Modernization NOW addresses critical topics, such as:

The limited predictive value of research using animals
The lack of clinical success
The dangers of misleading results
Public opinion and animal sentience
Why existing checks and balances are failing
Opportunities for economic advancement
How human-based methodologies outperform animal tests
World leadership
Major milestones in the global transition to non-animal research
The need for a paradigm shift
A plan of action: Recommendations for modernizing U.S. biomedical research
Recommendations for the following biomedical research areas
- Cancer
- Cardiovascular disease
- Cell therapy
- Diabetes
- HIV/AIDS
- Immunology
- Gastrointestinal disorders
- Nerve regeneration
- Neurodegenerative disease
- Neuropsychiatric disorders and neurodivergence
- Pandemic preparedness
- Sepsis
- Stroke
- Substance use disorder
- Women’s health
- Xenotransplantation

Read Research Modernization NOW in full.

¹Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences. Reconvened Scientific Management Review Board Meeting. FABBS. Published November 15, 2024. Accessed January 9, 2025. https://fabbs.org/news/2024/11/reconvened-scientific-management-review-board-meeting/
²National Institutes of Health. Mission and Goals. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Published October 24, 2024. Accessed January 9, 2025. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/mission-goals
³Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLOS Biol. 2015;13(6):e1002165. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
⁴National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. New Therapeutic Uses. Published April 19, 2024. Accessed September 25, 2024. https://ncats.nih.gov/research/research-activities/ntu
⁵Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ntzani EE, Ioannidis JPA. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. Am J Med. 2003;114(6):477-484. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00013-5
⁶Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ. 2014;348:g3387. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3387
⁷Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail. J Transl Med. 2018;16(1):304. doi:10.1186/s12967-018-1678-1
⁸van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000245. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245
⁹Gallup, Inc. Moral issues. Gallup.com. Published May 2024. Accessed June 2, 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1681/Moral-Issues.aspx

←Previous

Reflections