Some countries are looking to end animal testing. In Canada, there is a holdup

Charu Chandrasekera vividly remembers the moment she realized she needed a career change.

A biomedical researcher, he was using mice to study heart failure. But everything changed when his father needed a quadruple bypass.

“I looked at him, and everyone else in that ward, and I asked myself, ‘Is the work I’m doing … ever going to help patients like this?’ And the answer was a resounding no.”

That’s because information learned using animal experiments often doesn’t translate to success in humans. 90 percent of drugs tested to be safe and effective in animals end up failing human trials, according to several studies.

Dedicated to developing alternatives to animal testing, he founded the Canadian Center for Alternatives to Animal Methods at Ontario’s University of Windsor in 2017. He helped develop technologies such as 3D bioprinted tissue using human cells, monitoring health changes in a petri dish instead of an animal.

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

“The work of the center changed the discussion of animal testing in our country. Then we disappeared,” he said. “And it’s because, unlike other countries, our government has not seen it as a priority to fund it.”

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

And while Canada has a plan to replace animals used in chemical and toxicology testing, there is no plan yet for those used in biomedical testing, which account for between 40 and 60 percent. up to five million animals used in Canadian research settings, every year – the top one figures among the G7.

Chandrasekera believes we are missing an opportunity.

“We are talking about an industry that is expected to exist [worth] $30 billion by 2030,” he said.

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

Heart attack in container

Throughout the history of scientific research, animal testing has been the gold standard for understanding human disease and ensuring the safety of drugs, vaccines, and consumer products. But in 2006, Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka Nobel prize winning work in stem cells it opened the way for human cells to be used instead.

“This is the first time we have changed that,” said Milica Radidic.

Radisic is a professor at the University of Toronto and the Canada Research Chair in Organ-on-a-chip Engineering. He has developed a way to grow living heart tissue – complete with tissue and “blood vessels” – that beats rhythmically like a real heart.

An old way to test the effects of a heart attack was to lure a human into an animal. This new technology means that the process can be done to replace the cells in the container by lowering their oxygen levels.

“When we do that, we see it actually shrink and stop beating. Then we can use molecules, biologics or drugs that we believe will help salvage this heart tissue. And then we take it from there.”

The organ-on-a-chip is one of many technologies in development around the world, alongside tools such as in-vitro methods and AI computer models, that look to fill a gap in the way we do biomedical research.

“It is not possible to test one animal and put one person in,” said Chandrasekera. “It’s really about taking the best technology we have, asking questions that are relevant to our biology and answering them using very creative methods.”

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

“We’re not just good — we’re better than the animal species,” she 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 now.”

Administrator roles

Currently, in order 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 in science.

Before testing begins, CCAC’s peer review panel will look at the 3Rs: replace animals where possible, reduce their numbers and rationalize how they are used.

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

Verreault said he sees alternatives in the research, but more animal testing is still needed to fully confirm the data and meet the government’s public safety requirement.

Canada needs to take a leadership role and not just watch from the sidelines.– Charu Chandrasekera

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

Ultimately, Health Canada decides whether an alternative is acceptable, and has begun using them in certain situations. In 2023, the federal government passed Bill C-47, outright banning cosmetics testing on animals. That year, it also passed Bill S-5, composed in part by Chandrasekerawhich led to the release of detailed strategy animal testing in toxicology.

As for animals in biomedical settings, there is no established program to change them. In an email, a Health Canada spokesperson said the department continues to test new technologies.

Can we end animal testing?

Some researchers doubt that animal testing can be stopped anytime soon.

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

Czubryt uses mice to study heart failure, and says that in his research it’s important to look at how the body’s organs work together – something that’s not really possible in a petri dish.

“If you look at the organs alone, you will learn things, but you will also miss the important biology that is there,” he said.

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

Lucie Côté says she sees some of these tools being used, but wants to make sure it’s done safely.

“I think the bottom line is that science should guide us; it shouldn’t be politics or personal opinion,” said Côté, a veterinarian with the McGill University Health Center Research Institute, and president of the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Medicine.

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

Funding will pave the way

In March, the US Food and Drug Administration announced its latest push finding other animal methods for drug development, and investing in $150 million US from the National Institutes of Health. Last November, the UK announced a roadmap for alternatives, including £75 million for new technology.

Here in Canada, there is no money proposed to help fund these shifts.

Radisic says that although he understands Ottawa’s budget constraints between the US tax and weak economybelieves that alternative financing methods will pay off in the long run.

“These 3D tissue models will end up being cheaper than animal studies,” he said. “[It’s] not just that they are less cruel than animal studies.”

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

“Canada needs to take a leadership role and not just watch from the sidelines,” she said.

“I don’t understand why we can’t come together and say, ‘OK, here’s what’s broken. Let’s fix it.’