Last June I experienced something that I thought I’d long moved past in my career, during an inspection of a pharmaceutical-oriented animal research facility. The atmosphere and practices took me back by nearly two decades — a time when information on rules and regulations was scarce.

But it’s 2026. We are living in an era of unprecedented technological sophistication, which begs the question: why do animals continue to languish in subpar research laboratories with so little accountability?

In 1998, the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) was formalised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It was granted significant regulatory powers to ensure that animal use was restricted, ethical, and — most importantly — a last resort. Yet, decades later, the ‘three Rs’ (replacement, reduction, and refinement), introduced win 1959, often feel like a bureaucratic checklist rather than a scientific mandate.

The primary argument for animal experimentation is “human safety”, yet data increasingly suggests the opposite. The biological difference between species aside, in the absence of more technological advances, animal models have failed — for instance according to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), 90 per cent of drugs that pass animal tests ultimately fail in human trials.

It takes about nine years, $2.5 billion dand thousands of animals for a drug to come to the market. When a drug fails, so does the time, infrastructure and money invested.

Human-relevant science

The transition away from animal models isn’t just about compassion but also about precision. We are in a decade where good science is synonymous with human-relevant science.

Several non-animal methodologies such as organ on a chip, micro physiological systems, 3D printing, 4d cell cultures and advanced AI algorithms — new approach methodologies (NAMs) — are gaining popularity, and can predict toxicity, bypassing the need for “trial and error” on sentient beings.

Regulators in the US and the UK government are investing in roadmaps to phase out animal testing in the preclinical safety studies used in drug research. This transition favours NAMs.

This global movement towards precise, patient-specific strategies offer India a unique window fto establish itself as a leader in regulatory innovation. India is beginning to follow this international trajectory. Since 2019, the number of Indian laboratories and startups focused on human-based alternatives has tripled. This momentum is supported by critical policy updates, such as the New Drugs and Clinical Trials (Amendment) Rules, 2023, which explicitly permit the use of NAMs for drug safety and efficacy. Additionally, the Indian Pharmacopeia now accepts validated alternative methods for endotoxin testing.

Cages to chips

My laboratory visit last year revealed that no one was held accountable. True accountability demands mthat every grant proposal should proveswhy a non-animal method cannot be used, rather than the other way around.

Funding must shift from maintaining cages to the development of chips. The future of medicine doesn’t lie in an animal house, but in the sophisticated, ethical, and human-centric technologies that treat the human body as the primary map for discovery.

(The writer is Managing Director of Humane World for Animals India, a not-for-profit organisation working to promote new approach methods and end animal testing)

More Like This

Published on January 12, 2026