Five years ago, Daniela Salvatori predicted that we would now speak of 'humanized science'. As scientific director of the Center for Animal-Free Biomedical Translation (CPBT), she works tirelessly for a future without laboratory animals. "The technology is there. Now we must dare to collaborate differently."
Daniela Salvatori is an outspoken advocate of animal-free innovation. She is a veterinarian and professor of Comparative Anatomy and Physiology at Utrecht University. She is also the scientific director of the Center for Animal-Free Biomedical Translation (CPBT), which has received tens of millions of euros through the National Growth Fund. Salvatori is working on a radically different research practice: one that starts from humans, not animals. Her mission: to develop medicines that work – without animal testing.
You said in 2020 that we would be talking about humanized science in 2025. Has that prediction come true?
“The core of humanized science is that we use reliable data to develop better medicines. Animal testing often does not provide relevant information, because laboratory animals such as mice are usually inbred. As a result, they are genetically almost identical, which is far removed from the genetic diversity of humans. Furthermore, tests are often performed on animals of one sex. The human population is extremely diverse – in gender, genetics, lifestyle and needs. If we work with human cells, for example from patients themselves, we get much more reliable and relevant results. So yes, we have come a long way, but we are not there yet.”
What has really changed in practice in recent years?
“Both the FDA and EMA are taking steps. In the US, the Food and Drug Modernization Act adopted. This acknowledges that medicines can also be tested with new methods, without animals. That is truly a major breakthrough. At the same time, practice remains stubborn: regulations, industry and science must work together more closely. Otherwise, we will be talking past each other.”
How does the CPBT approach this in concrete terms?
“We bring all parties together: researchers, pharmaceutical companies, patients, policy makers. Take ALS as an example. A fatal disease for which animal testing has been done for decades. Without results. We use such diseases as cases to expose bottlenecks in the system. How can we work more efficiently and in a more people-oriented way? And what do companies need to make that transition? Because if a pharmaceutical company relies on animal data that turns out not to be representative, the company not only loses money, but also valuable time for patients.”
Is the technology ready to allow us to really say goodbye to animal testing?
Technologically, an incredible amount is possible: organ-on-chips, AI-driven models, stem cell technology. Developments are happening at breakneck speed. But technology alone is not enough. We also need to ensure that these methods are standardized, validated and widely accepted. That is expensive and complex. We are working in a completely new system, with different principles. That requires cooperation, trust, and patience.”
The CPBT aims to phase out animal testing in preclinical research by 2044. Is this feasible?
“It is ambitious, but we have no time to lose. With the CPBT alone we will not achieve this goal, but we are part of a broader international movement. If we develop other ways of working and change the mindset, we can really reach a tipping point. Then we will pave the way for full replacement.”
Some say that full replacement is not possible. What do you think?
“I hear that a lot, but I challenge that. During the COVID pandemic, we developed a vaccine within a year, with greatly reduced animal testing. Why? Because the urgency was there. Suddenly it became clear what is possible. Why shouldn’t we feel that urgency for millions of animals per year and for patients who need better therapies? As long as we have better technology, we also have a moral obligation to use it.”
Change also requires a cultural shift. How does education contribute to this?
“Students are often more sensitive to this message than established researchers. But there is a structural lack of attention in university curricula for how to choose the right model. We want students to learn to think in human models from day one. That is why we are collaborating on teaching materials on an international scale and are starting a student ambassador program to get students moving among themselves.”
How do you ensure that the debate does not polarize, but rather connects?
“By facilitating open dialogue. We bring together people who already work without animal testing and people who do not (yet). Not everyone immediately feels safe to change – and that is okay. Emotions are part of it. If someone is affected, it is because the subject matters. We give space to those concerns and to the inspiring examples. That is how we build trust.”
Want to know more? Daniela Salvatori is one of the speakers at the seminar From lab animal to lab model: animal-free future in the lab on Thursday 25 September during the LabNL trade fair. Discover which technologies are making a difference now and in the future – and see how the future of animal-free innovation is taking shape.
Nederlands