What’s POST?
POST is the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology. It provides briefings on technical subjects that can be used by Parliamentarians or the wider public to understand complex scientific topics.
What does their note cover?
Their terms of reference were specifically focussed on technologies that could replace live animals in the biosciences, rather than technologies that do new things or that will largely replace in vitro or in silico approaches. Also, several ‘non-animal’ approaches still involve animal use. For example, Matrigel, a material necessary to form organoids and support cell and tissue cultures, is extracted from intentionally-induced tumours in purpose-bred mice. Foetal bovine serum, obtained from the blood of cow foetuses, is used in cell cultures to support cell growth and maintenance.
Is it good information?
It’s very good. POST is well-respected for getting to the nuanced truth.
The note covers what the technologies are, their varying state of readiness, the nature and importance of validation, the nature and importance of regulation, economic opportunities opened up by new technologies and barriers to uptake including access to data.
Any takeaways?
We strongly recommend reading the whole document to get the full picture. That said, the note provides clear statements that encapsulate key concepts such as:
“Neither animal models nor alternative technologies perfectly replicate human biology.”
“The suitability of alternative technologies depends on the research question and field of study.”
“There are differences in how mature alternative technologies are, as well differences in how widely they can be applied to support the 3Rs (scientific readiness).”
“In certain contexts, alternative methods can generate data that may be more relevant to humans than traditional animal models.”
“While these models demonstrate significant potential, researchers caution that these methods are suited to specific applications, and require further development and validation before they can fully replace animal studies.”
“Broader areas of research where alternative technologies are not yet suitable include:
-
Understanding how organs and body-wide systems interact over time, including disease progression, ageing, neurodegeneration, obesity, immune function, circulation, and the movements and processing of hormones, nutrients, and waste products.
-
Side effects of taking one or multiple medications, such as internal bleeding and seizures.
-
Reproduction and developmental biology including pregnancy, embryo development and interactions between foetal and maternal systems.
-
Understanding behavioural changes associated with neurodevelopmental or neurodegenerative disorders and/or treatments to target them.148,149 Researchers highlighted that replacing animals in discovery research is challenging, since processes that are not fully understood cannot be modelled with confidence.”
Is there more to the story?
Not within those terms of reference. There is more going on in terms of new bioscience technologies that we wouldn’t use animals for anyway. For instance, there are new tools for observing how brain cells self-organise that one couldn’t view in an animal. Such tools aren’t replacing anything so much as providing a new tool.
Understanding Animal Research contributed to this POST note and acted as an external reviewer. A full list of contributors can be found in the briefing.
Read the full briefing here: https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0756
Last edited: 6 January 2026 17:10
