Other countries are considering ending animal testing. In Canada, there is a blockage

Charu Chandrashekhar clearly remembers the moment when he realized he needed a career change.

A biomedical researcher, she was using rats to study heart failure. But everything changed when his father required a quadruple bypass.

“I looked at him and all the other people on that ward, and I asked myself, ‘Will the work I’m doing… will it ever help patients like these?’ And the answer was a resounding ‘no’.

This is because information learned using animal testing often does not translate into success in humans. Ninety percent of drugs tested as safe and effective on animals fail in human trials, according to several studies.

He focused on developing alternatives to animal testing, founding the Canadian Center for Alternatives to Animal Methods at the University of Windsor, Ontario in 2017. He helped develop technologies such as 3D bioprinted tissues using human cells to monitor health changes in a petri dish instead of an animal.

But these days, his 3D bioprinter sits in a storage unit. He was forced to close his lab in 2024 due to lack of funding.

He said, “The center’s work changed the conversation around animal testing in our country. And then it disappeared.” “And only because, unlike other comparable countries, our government did not see funding it as a priority.”

Other countries such as the UK, the United States and the European Union all have dedicated funding and detailed roadmaps to replace animal testing in research settings.

And while Canada has a strategy to replace animals used in chemical and toxicity testing, there is still no plan for animals used in biomedical testing, which accounts for between 40 and 60 per cent. up to five million animals Used in Canadian research settings each year – one of the highest Figures among the G7.

Chandrashekhar believes that we are losing an opportunity.

“We are talking about an industry that is expected to be worth $30 billion (worth) by 2030,” he said. “We are moving away from animal testing, whether Canada likes it or not.

“So the question really is: ‘Do we want to have a piece of that pie?'”

heart attack in a dish

Throughout the history of scientific research, animal testing has been the gold standard in understanding human diseases and ensuring the safety of drugs, vaccines, and consumer products. But in 2006, Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka Nobel-prize winning work This led to the use of human cells instead of stem cells.

“This is really the first time that we can change it,” Milica Radisic said.

Radisic is a professor at the University of Toronto and also holds the Canada Research Chair in Organ-on-a-Chip Engineering. She has developed a way to grow living heart tissue with muscles and “blood vessels” – which beats rhythmically like a real heart.

The old way to test the effects of a heart attack was to cause it in an animal. This new technology means the process can be performed on cells in a dish by reducing their oxygen levels.

“When we do that, we see that it actually slows down and stops beating. Then we can apply molecules, biologics or drugs that we believe will help save this heart muscle. And then we take it from there.”

Organ-on-a-chip is one of many technologies being developed around the world, along with tools such as in-vitro methods and AI computational models, to fill this gap in how we conduct biomedical research.

“This is not about taking an animal test and replacing it with a human test,” Chandrasekhar said. “It’s really about taking the best possible technologies we have, asking questions relevant to our biology, and answering them using very creative ways.”

Now, Radisic says, they just need to prove it to regulators.

“We’re not just as good – we’re better than animal models,” he said. “It’s the job of all of us scientists … to prove to regulators that our models are good enough. And that’s where all the work is going on right now.”

Roles of regulators

Right now, to receive some funding, Canadian researchers must go through the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), a non-profit organization responsible for ethical standards in the use of animals for science.

Before experiments begin, the CCAC peer-review panel will look at the 3Rs: replace animals where possible, reduce their numbers, and refine how they are used.

“If a researcher decides, ‘I think I can do the first part of my study on a chip,’ that’s great. We’re very happy with that,” said Pierre Verrault, executive director of the CCAC.

Verreault said he is looking at more options in research, but some animal testing is still needed to fully validate the data and meet the government’s public safety requirement.

Canada needs to take a leadership role, not just sit on the sidelines and watch.– Charu Chandrashekhar

“Will we still need animals in the future? Yes. Forever? Hopefully not.”

Ultimately, Health Canada determines whether an alternative approach is acceptable, and has begun adopting them in some situations. In 2023, the federal government passed Bill C-47, outright banning cosmetic testing on animals. That year, it also passed Bill S-5, Partially shaped by Chandrashekharwhich led to the release a detailed strategy For animal testing in toxicology.

As far as animals in biomedical settings are concerned, there are no set plans to replace them. In an email, a Health Canada spokesperson said the department continues to assess new technologies.

Can we end animal testing?

Some researchers doubt that animal testing could end anytime soon.

“Animal models often give us the first glimpse of what’s really going on by allowing us to ask questions that we can’t in human samples,” said Michael Czubrit, a professor of physiology at the University of Manitoba.

Czubryt uses mice to study heart failure, and says it’s important in her research to see how organs interact with each other — which isn’t exactly possible in a petri dish.

“If you look at organs in isolation, you’ll learn things, but you’ll also miss some of the important biology that’s there,” he said.

“And we can’t afford to do that. We really need to get that big picture.”

Lucy Cote says she sees more of these devices being implemented, but she wants to make sure it’s done safely.

“I think the important thing is that science should guide us; it should not be politics or personal opinion,” said Cote, president of the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Medicine and a veterinarian at McGill University.

“We all have loved ones who have benefited from advances in biomedical research. And I think everyone can understand that we need to proceed in a very cautious manner.”

Funding will pave the way

In March, the US Food and Drug Administration announced its latest endeavor Finding animal alternatives for drug development along with investment of Rs. $150 million US From the National Institutes of Health. last November, Britain announced A roadmap for alternative approaches, including £75 million for new technologies.

Here in Canada, no money has been proposed to finance these changes.

Radisic says though she understands Ottawa’s budget constraints amid U.S. tariffs and a weakening economyHe believes that the funding options will be beneficial in the long run.

“These 3D tissue models will ultimately be cheaper than animal studies,” he said. “(It’s not) that they’re any less cruel than the animal studies.”

Without that funding, Chandrasekera says he and researchers like him would be forced to leave Canada to develop their technologies elsewhere.

“Canada needs to take a leadership role, not just sit on the sidelines and watch,” he said.

“I don’t understand why we can’t come together collectively and just say, ‘Okay, this is what’s broken. Let’s fix it.'”