Krebs, Catharine E., Geissler, Sven, Herrmann, Kathrin, Kandaras, Kenneth, Kavanagh, Owen ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2599-8511, Langan, Laura M., Pistollato, Francesca, Raha, Sandeep, Tripodi, Ignacio J. and Trunnell, Emily R. (2025) Exploring animal methods bias in biomedical research funding: Workshop proceedings and action steps. NAM Journal, 1. p. 100004.

	Text Animal methods bias in funding workshop report 2024-12-19.pdf - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only Download (398kB)
	Text Animal methods bias in funding workshop report 2024-12-19.docx - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only Download (197kB)

Abstract

New approach methodologies (NAMs) and other nonanimal methods are increasingly effective and available to researchers for modeling human biology and disease, but barriers to their broader adoption remain. One such barrier is animal methods bias: a type of peer review bias characterized by a preference for animal-based research methods or lack of expertise to properly evaluate nonanimal methods, which affects the fair consideration of animal-free approaches. Existing evidence demonstrates that animal methods bias can affect the likelihood and timeliness of animal-free studies being accepted for publication, and anecdotes indicate that it can impact the review of applications for funding too. To assess this latter phenomenon further, the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias hosted a virtual interactive workshop in May 2024 to explore (1) how animal methods bias affects the review of grant proposals and subsequent funding rates for researchers who use nonanimal methods and (2) possible solutions for biomedical researchers and funders to mitigate these effects. Researchers, funders, peer review bias scholars, and research policy professionals gathered to synthesize current knowledge and gaps, scholarship and personal perspectives on peer review bias, and funding contexts regarding the prioritization and assessment of nonanimal research. Here, we present workshop proceedings and action steps aimed at addressing animal methods bias in funding. Possible mitigation measures include promoting the value of NAMs among the scientific community, implementing bias mitigation training, ensuring review groups have proper expertise to adequately evaluate NAMs proposals, and investing in NAMs initiatives and infrastructure.

Item Type:	Article
Status:	Published
DOI:	10.1016/j.namjnl.2024.100004
School/Department:	School of Science, Technology and Health
URI:	https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/11254

University Staff: Request a correction | RaY Editors: Update this record