By Dr. Charu Chandrasekera
Dr. Charu Chandrasekera is the founder and executive director of the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods (CCAAM).
My career in biomedical research began twenty years ago with the prevailing conviction that animal experiments were essential to saving lives—the benchmark of a scientist’s impact. This belief remained unchallenged through years of cardiovascular research in mice until a pivotal moment at the Halifax Heart Centre, where my father lay recovering from quadruple bypass surgery. In a ward filled with patients struggling to recover from heart disease, I confronted a question I had not allowed to surface: Would my heart failure research in mice meaningfully contribute to my father’s recovery?
Back in my lab, I posed that question to a senior professor who was an expert in cardiovascular disease in mice. “How the hell would I know? We’ve never looked at this in the human heart.” His response altered the course of my career.
I was reminded of his words when the IJB reported on dog heart failure research happening behind the tightly guarded doors of an Ontario hospital. Detailed animal care and use protocols indicate that puppies were subjected to massive heart attacks lasting up to three hours, imaged via MRI and PET, then euthanized for postmortem tissue analysis. The researchers assert that “more than 10,000 patients benefit annually for every dog included in this research.”
But if the impact of animal research could be measured with such precision, its value would not be a matter of intense debate.
The prevailing rationale for using animals in research within the scientific community is that animal experimentation is necessary because “effective alternatives do not yet exist”, as the research institute in the IJB investigation claimed. This has led to the public belief that to cure diseases such as heart failure, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, or cancer, we must conduct animal experiments.
Yet decades of animal data tell a different story: heart failure remains the leading cause of death worldwide; every promising Alzheimer’s trial has failed; muscular dystrophy has no pharmacologic cure; and prognosis remains dismal for many cancers. Most strikingly, over 90% of drugs deemed safe and effective in animals fail in human trials. Despite headline-making breakthroughs from animal research labs, underlying biological mechanisms in humans often remain elusive.
The 3Rs principle—Replace, Reduce, and Refine to minimize pain—was established over sixty years ago to improve both the quality of science and the welfare of animals. Yet scientific culture remains entrenched in animal research, focused on curing disease in animals and insisting that human biology be validated in animals. One of the most common cited reasons to continue with animals is the discovery of insulin in 1921, Canada’s most celebrated medical breakthrough, which emerged from dog experiments. But to justify the continued use of animals a century later because it succeeded in an era without modern technology is to praise the telegraph in the age of Zoom.
Yet Canada is a laggard on the global science stage. Over 3.1 million animals were used in 2023 for scientific purposes. Statistics show Canada’s animal use is four times higher per capita than the European Union and Norway combined.
The 21st-century new approach methodologies toolbox, spanning versatile in vitro, ex- vivo, in chemico, in vivo, and in silico approaches, offers a rich spectrum of ways to interrogate human biology in unprecedented detail in a context-dependent, fit-for-purpose manner with greater predictive power—capturing scenarios not possible even in animals. Were insulin to be discovered today, it could be achieved without dogs or other animals by a new generation of scientists trained to design experiments using these modern methods.
New technologies and policy changes are driving a global paradigm shift away from our reliance on animals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission are charting a course to prioritize human-relevant, animal-free science through new roadmaps, legislation, and targeted investment. As of July 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will no longer develop new funding opportunities exclusively for animal models of human disease in a clear signal that alternative methods are scientifically credible.
Too often the question “Have you considered alternatives?” in grant applications and animal care protocol approvals has become a box-ticking formality. Peer review of animal studies is far from foolproof; reviewers can be biased in favour of animal methods or lack expertise in modern techniques.
To save the lives of people with heart failure, like my father, we must demand science grounded in human biology. That requires transparency, legislation, and funding that supports animal-free science.
We can save lives—without sacrificing them.
- INSIGHTS: I was nearly beaten to death with a rolling pin. Then the criminal justice system failed me - 27 February 2026
- INSIGHTS: If we are serious about ending male violence against women, we must abandon the term “Intimate Partner Violence” - 13 February 2026
- INSIGHTS: Gaps in federal oversight leave First Nations patients behind - 9 January 2026