That’s awesome, Suzanne—thank you for taking action! And yes, it’s one of those rare moments where unexpected alliances are making real progress. Appreciate you being part of the movement! BTW: Here is one of several articles I wrote about Kennedy a while back: https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/in-defense-of-robert-f-kennedy-jr
Great question, Augusta! Ideally, as the FDA shifts away from animal testing, we’ll see a surge in rescue, rehabilitation, and adoption efforts for animals like beagles and other lab animals. Many organizations are already working to ensure these animals find loving homes. This transition is not just about science—it’s about compassion too. Thanks for raising such an important point!
When they phased out cosmetic testing on animals in CA, rescues including wee companions stepped up and took a few of the rabbits in. They needed a lot of rehabilitation to not be scared of people. The unfortunate thing is one suddenly died with no cause which may or may not have been related to the testing. Hopefully this is what will happen to the poor souls already experimented on. Wee companions also recently took on lab rats and rehabilitated them.
Thank you for sharing that, Kelly. It's heartening to hear how groups like Wee Companions step up with such compassion, even knowing the challenges. Let’s hope more animals get the same chance at healing and love as we move forward.
I've only met three lab rabbits. They are terrified of humans. One was only a year old and she had a seizure and died at the shelter. Since they were confined to small cages and subjected to horrible procedures at the laboratory, I'd assume their health isn't great. We stopped letting them out of their enclosures at the shelter after the first one died. They would get tired and rest after hopping around for a short period. Our other two survivors are in foster homes as the shelter is too scary for them.
Thank you for sharing this, Suzanne. It’s heartbreaking but so important for people to understand the lasting impact lab life has on these animals. Your compassion and the care you’ve given them—especially through fostering—is truly admirable. Stories like these remind us why change is so needed.
Absolutely, Emily—thank you for sharing that! These animals often need a little extra patience and love as they adjust, but the reward is so worth it. It’s great to hear stories like this that show what’s possible with compassion and care.
I think that is why it’s so important that rescues take in these animals first to assess how badly they were impacted and then adopt them out. That way no family has to go through the heartbreak of something being seriously wrong from the testing and losing their pet. It could still happen but having people experienced with the breeds to assess and monitor and rehab would be an ideal situation in my opinion.
Hi Kelly, I completely agree! Rescues play a vital role in ensuring these animals are carefully assessed, rehabilitated, and matched with loving families. Having experienced professionals monitor and support them helps minimize risks and gives these animals the best chance at a happy life. Your idea of prioritizing breed-specific expertise is spot on—it’s a compassionate and practical approach to addressing the challenges these animals may face post-testing. Thank you for sharing!
Any idea about the pivots the breeders will be making in light of this change? My understanding was that one factor in FDA reluctance to stop animal testing has been due to breeder lobbying. Do you have a better sense of this?
Great question, HW! Breeders supplying labs may indeed feel pressure to pivot as demand declines. While their lobbying influence has been a factor, this shift signals a major change in priorities. It’ll be interesting to watch how they adapt—some may move toward other markets or phase out entirely.
This is amazing news. Here in the UK, we are still coming up against a brick wall but gradually chipping away via public outreach and our politicians. In a recent talk, Dr André Menache said that 2-10% of the public need to be informed and to get on board for real change to happen.
I'm just curious about the stats you quoted ("Studies estimate that animal models correlate with human efficacy in only 37% to 60% of cases and correctly identify human-relevant toxic effects just 70% of the time.") I've repeatedly seen it quoted here in the UK that more than 90% of ALL drugs tested on non-human animals fail in human clinical trials. Can you comment on this disparity?
Hi Shelagh, thank you for sharing Dr. Menache’s insight—public engagement truly is key to progress! You’re right that the statistic about over 90% of drugs failing in human clinical trials after passing animal tests is widely cited, including by the FDA and organizations like Humane Society International and Safer Medicines Trust. This figure reflects the overall failure rate for drugs that make it through preclinical (including animal) testing but don’t ultimately succeed in human trials, often due to lack of efficacy or unforeseen safety issues.
The stats I quoted—animal models correlating with human efficacy in only 37% to 60% of cases and about 70% for toxicity—come from meta-analyses and scientific reviews that specifically examine how well animal studies predict human outcomes on a case-by-case basis.
Both sets of numbers highlight the same core problem: animal experiments are poor predictors of human results, which is a major reason for the high attrition rate in drug development. So, while the numbers are presented differently, they both underscore the urgent need for more human-relevant research methods. Thank you for raising this important point and for all you’re doing to help move the conversation forward in the UK!
Thank you for your reply. Finding it difficult to get my head around the discrepancy in these figures, I did some digging around. I found the passage you used ("Studies estimate that animal models correlate with human efficacy in only 37% to 60% of cases and correctly identify human-relevant toxic effects just 70% of the time.") in a paper by Thomas Hartung in Frontiers in Drug Development: https://doi.org/10.3389/fddsv.2024.1355044 However, that review paper includes references but no citations! Do you have any idea of the original source of these figures?
Hi Shelagh, thanks for following up and for digging into the source—that’s great research! The figures I referenced from Thomas Hartung’s review in Frontiers in Drug Development do summarize a range of studies, but as you noticed, that paper doesn’t provide direct citations for those exact numbers.
The estimates of 37% to 60% correlation for efficacy and about 70% accuracy for toxicity come from meta-analyses and reviews of multiple animal studies compared to human outcomes. For example, several key sources include:
A 2019 review in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that animal models often fail to reliably predict human toxicity, with predictive values sometimes no better than chance (Van Norman, 2019).
Analyses of thousands of drugs show high failure rates in clinical trials despite positive animal data, highlighting the limited translatability of animal models to human efficacy and safety.
Systematic reviews have reported that animal studies replicate human results only about 37% to 60% of the time for efficacy and about 70% for toxicity, reflecting significant biological and methodological limitations.
These figures are drawn from aggregating many studies rather than a single source, which is why Hartung’s paper presents them as ranges without direct citations. The overall consensus in the scientific literature is that while animal testing has historically been the standard, its predictive power is limited and inconsistent, which supports the FDA’s recent move toward human-relevant, non-animal testing methods.
Here are some of the original studies and reviews for your reference. Thanks again for your thoughtful engagement—it’s essential as we push for better science and animal welfare!
Thank you so much. A lot of reading material for me there! In undertaking outreach, I think it's important that in stating facts passed on to us, we understand their roots. Tbh, it's still unclear to me where the >90% failure rate is derived from!
This is great news for the companion animal world and for those of us workingin lost pet recovery work!
I hope this puts an end to the needless anxiety folklore that "bunchers" are driving around neighborhoods "stealing pets' and selling them to research laboratories! I once had to talk a hysterical woman down whose Labrador went missing while jogging with her husband in the forest. She called an anti-vivisection nonprofit and they told her that her dog could've been abducted and sold to a research lab!
When I explained that the probability that a "buncher" was out in those woods when her dog was out there was like 1% but the probability that someone in the woods found her dog and assumed it was "dumped" was high!
Thanks, Kat! That’s such an important point—this breakthrough not only helps animals in labs, but also dispels outdated myths that cause unnecessary fear. Your work in lost pet recovery brings such valuable clarity and compassion to these situations!
Ed, does the bill have a number or is if the just modernization act 3.0? Just thinking of those who want to contact Congress but are not really sure what to say.
Hi Kelly, great question! The FDA Modernization Act 3.0 does indeed have specific bill numbers for those who want to reference it when contacting Congress. In the House, it’s H.R. 7248, and in the Senate, it’s S. 355. These identifiers can be helpful for constituents to mention directly when advocating for the legislation. Thank you for raising this point—it’s a great way to ensure clarity and focus when reaching out to lawmakers!
I sent an email to Sarah Jacobs. Thanks for including the email links. I can't believe I agree with RFK Jr. on an issue!!!
That’s awesome, Suzanne—thank you for taking action! And yes, it’s one of those rare moments where unexpected alliances are making real progress. Appreciate you being part of the movement! BTW: Here is one of several articles I wrote about Kennedy a while back: https://open.substack.com/pub/animalpolitics/p/in-defense-of-robert-f-kennedy-jr
Excellent first step. Who would've thought we'd be thanking A.I.?! My reps have been contacted.
What will happen to all the animals in the labs if they are no longer needed?
Great question, Augusta! Ideally, as the FDA shifts away from animal testing, we’ll see a surge in rescue, rehabilitation, and adoption efforts for animals like beagles and other lab animals. Many organizations are already working to ensure these animals find loving homes. This transition is not just about science—it’s about compassion too. Thanks for raising such an important point!
When they phased out cosmetic testing on animals in CA, rescues including wee companions stepped up and took a few of the rabbits in. They needed a lot of rehabilitation to not be scared of people. The unfortunate thing is one suddenly died with no cause which may or may not have been related to the testing. Hopefully this is what will happen to the poor souls already experimented on. Wee companions also recently took on lab rats and rehabilitated them.
Thank you for sharing that, Kelly. It's heartening to hear how groups like Wee Companions step up with such compassion, even knowing the challenges. Let’s hope more animals get the same chance at healing and love as we move forward.
I've only met three lab rabbits. They are terrified of humans. One was only a year old and she had a seizure and died at the shelter. Since they were confined to small cages and subjected to horrible procedures at the laboratory, I'd assume their health isn't great. We stopped letting them out of their enclosures at the shelter after the first one died. They would get tired and rest after hopping around for a short period. Our other two survivors are in foster homes as the shelter is too scary for them.
Thank you for sharing this, Suzanne. It’s heartbreaking but so important for people to understand the lasting impact lab life has on these animals. Your compassion and the care you’ve given them—especially through fostering—is truly admirable. Stories like these remind us why change is so needed.
I just recently talked to a lady that adopted a beagle that came from a testing lab
He needed to be housebroken and to walk on a leash. And he doesn’t like steps
So there would be challenges to overcome. Nothing too overwhelming, but people need to be aware
Absolutely, Emily—thank you for sharing that! These animals often need a little extra patience and love as they adjust, but the reward is so worth it. It’s great to hear stories like this that show what’s possible with compassion and care.
I think that is why it’s so important that rescues take in these animals first to assess how badly they were impacted and then adopt them out. That way no family has to go through the heartbreak of something being seriously wrong from the testing and losing their pet. It could still happen but having people experienced with the breeds to assess and monitor and rehab would be an ideal situation in my opinion.
Hi Kelly, I completely agree! Rescues play a vital role in ensuring these animals are carefully assessed, rehabilitated, and matched with loving families. Having experienced professionals monitor and support them helps minimize risks and gives these animals the best chance at a happy life. Your idea of prioritizing breed-specific expertise is spot on—it’s a compassionate and practical approach to addressing the challenges these animals may face post-testing. Thank you for sharing!
Any idea about the pivots the breeders will be making in light of this change? My understanding was that one factor in FDA reluctance to stop animal testing has been due to breeder lobbying. Do you have a better sense of this?
Great question, HW! Breeders supplying labs may indeed feel pressure to pivot as demand declines. While their lobbying influence has been a factor, this shift signals a major change in priorities. It’ll be interesting to watch how they adapt—some may move toward other markets or phase out entirely.
Thanks for the reply—let’s hope they phase out entirely.
Second attempt at commenting....
This is amazing news. Here in the UK, we are still coming up against a brick wall but gradually chipping away via public outreach and our politicians. In a recent talk, Dr André Menache said that 2-10% of the public need to be informed and to get on board for real change to happen.
I'm just curious about the stats you quoted ("Studies estimate that animal models correlate with human efficacy in only 37% to 60% of cases and correctly identify human-relevant toxic effects just 70% of the time.") I've repeatedly seen it quoted here in the UK that more than 90% of ALL drugs tested on non-human animals fail in human clinical trials. Can you comment on this disparity?
Thank you 🙏🏻
Hi Shelagh, thank you for sharing Dr. Menache’s insight—public engagement truly is key to progress! You’re right that the statistic about over 90% of drugs failing in human clinical trials after passing animal tests is widely cited, including by the FDA and organizations like Humane Society International and Safer Medicines Trust. This figure reflects the overall failure rate for drugs that make it through preclinical (including animal) testing but don’t ultimately succeed in human trials, often due to lack of efficacy or unforeseen safety issues.
The stats I quoted—animal models correlating with human efficacy in only 37% to 60% of cases and about 70% for toxicity—come from meta-analyses and scientific reviews that specifically examine how well animal studies predict human outcomes on a case-by-case basis.
Both sets of numbers highlight the same core problem: animal experiments are poor predictors of human results, which is a major reason for the high attrition rate in drug development. So, while the numbers are presented differently, they both underscore the urgent need for more human-relevant research methods. Thank you for raising this important point and for all you’re doing to help move the conversation forward in the UK!
Thank you for your reply. Finding it difficult to get my head around the discrepancy in these figures, I did some digging around. I found the passage you used ("Studies estimate that animal models correlate with human efficacy in only 37% to 60% of cases and correctly identify human-relevant toxic effects just 70% of the time.") in a paper by Thomas Hartung in Frontiers in Drug Development: https://doi.org/10.3389/fddsv.2024.1355044 However, that review paper includes references but no citations! Do you have any idea of the original source of these figures?
Hi Shelagh, thanks for following up and for digging into the source—that’s great research! The figures I referenced from Thomas Hartung’s review in Frontiers in Drug Development do summarize a range of studies, but as you noticed, that paper doesn’t provide direct citations for those exact numbers.
The estimates of 37% to 60% correlation for efficacy and about 70% accuracy for toxicity come from meta-analyses and reviews of multiple animal studies compared to human outcomes. For example, several key sources include:
A 2019 review in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that animal models often fail to reliably predict human toxicity, with predictive values sometimes no better than chance (Van Norman, 2019).
Analyses of thousands of drugs show high failure rates in clinical trials despite positive animal data, highlighting the limited translatability of animal models to human efficacy and safety.
Systematic reviews have reported that animal studies replicate human results only about 37% to 60% of the time for efficacy and about 70% for toxicity, reflecting significant biological and methodological limitations.
These figures are drawn from aggregating many studies rather than a single source, which is why Hartung’s paper presents them as ranges without direct citations. The overall consensus in the scientific literature is that while animal testing has historically been the standard, its predictive power is limited and inconsistent, which supports the FDA’s recent move toward human-relevant, non-animal testing methods.
Here are some of the original studies and reviews for your reference. Thanks again for your thoughtful engagement—it’s essential as we push for better science and animal welfare!
https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6978558/
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/drug-discovery/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2024.1355044/full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452302X1930316X
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6563989/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-020-01033-x
Thank you so much. A lot of reading material for me there! In undertaking outreach, I think it's important that in stating facts passed on to us, we understand their roots. Tbh, it's still unclear to me where the >90% failure rate is derived from!
This is great news for the companion animal world and for those of us workingin lost pet recovery work!
I hope this puts an end to the needless anxiety folklore that "bunchers" are driving around neighborhoods "stealing pets' and selling them to research laboratories! I once had to talk a hysterical woman down whose Labrador went missing while jogging with her husband in the forest. She called an anti-vivisection nonprofit and they told her that her dog could've been abducted and sold to a research lab!
When I explained that the probability that a "buncher" was out in those woods when her dog was out there was like 1% but the probability that someone in the woods found her dog and assumed it was "dumped" was high!
Thanks, Kat! That’s such an important point—this breakthrough not only helps animals in labs, but also dispels outdated myths that cause unnecessary fear. Your work in lost pet recovery brings such valuable clarity and compassion to these situations!
Ed, does the bill have a number or is if the just modernization act 3.0? Just thinking of those who want to contact Congress but are not really sure what to say.
Hi Kelly, great question! The FDA Modernization Act 3.0 does indeed have specific bill numbers for those who want to reference it when contacting Congress. In the House, it’s H.R. 7248, and in the Senate, it’s S. 355. These identifiers can be helpful for constituents to mention directly when advocating for the legislation. Thank you for raising this point—it’s a great way to ensure clarity and focus when reaching out to lawmakers!