Washington, D.C. — Cure Coalition today released Research Brief No. 1, “The Science Hasn’t Changed,” examining the current push to phase out the animal research behind many of America’s modern medicines. The brief finds that six of the nation’s leading research universities, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office all describe today’s proposed replacement technologies as too early to safely stand in for animal studies — even as the phase-out of animal research continues to move on a fixed timeline.
Key Findings
- The science and the politics have diverged. Since 2025, the FDA, EPA, HHS, NIH, and VA have all moved to reduce or phase out animal testing, and Congress cleared the way with the FDA Modernization Acts 2.0 and 3.0. Yet Stanford, Harvard, and other leading research universities continue to state publicly that animal research remains essential to developing safe medicines.
- The National Academies found no replacement exists for the most complex research. A 2023 National Academies review concluded there are “no alternative approaches that can replace nonhuman primate models” for research requiring fully integrated biology — and noted that could change only as the methods mature, not that it already has.
- Practical barriers still stand in the way. A 2026 Government Accountability Office review found organ-chip and tissue models limited by a shortage of high-quality human cells, a lack of benchmark and validation studies, and unclear federal guidance — obstacles GAO said make the technology early, not ready.
- Common ground: New methods can complement animal research today. In vitro immunoassays, microphysiological systems, brain organoids, and AI tools are already reducing how many animals a program needs. But even Harvard Medical School notes these tools “cannot yet replace animals fully.”
- Moving too fast carries a national security cost. The brief warns that research phased out in the U.S. does not disappear — it relocates, most likely to China, where oversight and transparency fall short of the American gold standard, leaving U.S. families more dependent on a strategic rival for their medicine.
- “NAMs” are not one technology — they’re three, at three different stages of readiness. New Approach Methodologies span in vitro/organoid systems, in silico and AI modeling, and human-cell assays. Bundling them under one label creates a false equivalence that makes early-stage science sound ready to deploy.
“This brief is not an argument against progress — it’s an argument for an appropriate sequence,” said Cara Kingan, Executive Director of the Cure Coalition. “The scientists who build America’s cures are telling Washington, in their own words, that the replacements for animal research are not there yet. Patients should not be turned into test cases for unproven safety tools. Validate first. Replace second. Not the reverse.”
Research Brief No. 1 draws on the FDA’s 2025 roadmap to reduce animal testing, the FDA Modernization Acts 2.0 and 3.0, a 2023 National Academies review of nonhuman primate models, a 2026 Government Accountability Office review of organ-on-a-chip technology, a statement from the National Association for Biomedical Research, published research from Harvard Medical School and other institutions, and the public research-program positions of Stanford, Harvard, the University of Michigan, UT Austin, the University of Virginia, and the University of Florida.
You can read the full research brief, including sourcing and Congressional recommendations, on our website:
https://curecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Research-Brief-1.pdf
About Cure Coalition
Cure Coalition advocates for responsible, evidence-based biomedical research that keeps our families safe and keeps trusted U.S. research approaches as the standard. As mothers, healthcare professionals, and concerned citizens, we’re committed to advancing treatments and cures through medicines Americans can count on. Learn more at curecoalition.org.