02675nas a2200313   4500000000100000008004100001260001500042653002400057653003300081653003100114653002100145653002100166100002300187700001800210700002100228700002100249700001800270700002000288700002500308700001700333700002300350700002200373245010400395856007200499300001100571490000600582520175900588022001402347       2025                            d  c2025-01-0110aAnimal methods bias10aAnimal research alternatives10aBiomedical research policy10aPeer review bias10aResearch funding1 aCatharine E. Krebs1 aSven Geissler1 aKathrin Herrmann1 aKenneth Kandaras1 aOwen Kavanagh1 aLaura M. Langan1 aFrancesca Pistollato1 aSandeep Raha1 aIgnacio J. Tripodi1 aEmily R. Trunnell00aExploring animal methods bias in biomedical research funding: Workshop proceedings and action steps  uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050620424000046  a1000040 v13 aNew 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.  a3050-6204