01976nas a2200229   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043653003900058653002400097653002400121653002100145653001600166653002600182100002300208700002100231245007800252856006800330490000600398520132800404022001401732       2024                            d  c2024-04-0310aAlternatives to animal experiments10aAnimal methods bias10aBiomedical Research10aDrug development10apeer review10aScientific publishing1 aCatharine E. Krebs1 aKathrin Herrmann00aConfronting the bias towards animal experimentation (animal methods bias)  uhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2024.13477980 v43 aLaws and policies are in place around the world to promote the replacement and reduction of nonhuman animals in science. These principles are rooted not just in ethical considerations for animals, but also in scientific considerations regarding the limitations of using nonhuman animals to model human biology, health, and disease. New nonanimal research approaches that use human biology, cells, and data to mimic complex human physiological states and therapeutic responses have become increasingly effective and accessible, replacing the use of animals in several applications, and becoming a crucial tool for biomedical research and drug development. Despite many advantages, acceptance of these new nonanimal methods has been slow, and barriers to their broader uptake remain. One such barrier is animal methods bias, the preference for animal-based methods where they are not necessary or where animal-free methods are suitable. This bias can impact research assessments and can discourage researchers from using novel nonanimal approaches. This article provides an introductory overview of animal methods bias for the general public, reviewing evidence, exploring consequences, and discussing ongoing mitigation efforts aimed at reducing barriers in the shift away from animal use in biomedical research and testing.  a2674-0338