Peer Review Is Protecting Animal Experiments
The peer-review process is supposed to be the gold standard of scientific integrity. It is held up as impartial, rigorous, and central to progress. But when it comes to animal experiments, the evidence shows otherwise. What we are really looking at is not scientific quality control, but a cultural bias that keeps animals in laboratories and slows the adoption of human-relevant research.
A new survey of researchers in India exposes this entrenched “animal methods bias.” Out of 100 respondents, more than half said reviewers had demanded animal experiments be added to studies that originally contained none. On average, researchers faced these requests around eight times during their careers. And while most resisted when they could, about one in five admitted to performing animal experiments solely because they anticipated reviewers would insist on them. Not because the experiments were necessary, not because the science demanded it, but because gatekeepers cling to the idea that animals are the only way to validate results.
The consequences are telling. Researchers who refused often saw their work rejected or pushed into lower-impact journals. Over half said their lack of animal experiments weakened their chances of securing grants. A third reported direct funding losses. Reviewers are effectively saying: unless you harm animals, your science doesn’t count.
Why? The survey lays bare the rationale. Those who complied often did so because they thought it would improve publication chances, not because the experiments were genuinely justified. Those who resisted pointed out the demands were unfeasible, out-of-scope, or simply irrelevant. Yet systemic beliefs keep resurfacing: that animal experiments are required to “validate” in vitro results, that without animals a study is “incomplete,” that using human biology is somehow “lacking novelty.” These are not scientific conclusions, they are cultural prejudices dressed up as peer review.
This bias is not unique to India. A global survey published two years ago found nearly half of respondents had been asked to add animal data to non-animal studies. Some even carried out experiments they did not believe were necessary, just to appease reviewers. The repetition of this pattern in India confirms the problem is systemic.
And it is a problem with high stakes. Animal-based research has a dismal track record of predicting human outcomes. Billions are wasted on experiments that fail to translate, while patients wait for treatments delayed or derailed by this bottleneck. Non-animal methods like organoids and organs-on-chips are already proving more predictive in many contexts, from liver toxicity to viral infections. Regulators in India and the United States have even updated rules to explicitly allow non-animal approaches. Yet peer reviewers remain one of the biggest obstacles to their adoption.
This is not about scientific rigour. It is about protecting tradition. The belief that animal experiments are the “gold standard” has become dogma. And like all dogmas, it resists evidence that threatens its authority. By forcing animal experiments into studies where they are irrelevant, reviewers are not only perpetuating animal exploitation, they are holding back progress in human medicine.
The survey’s conclusion is clear: without reform, the system will continue to punish innovation and reward compliance with outdated practices. What is needed is not more excuses about “validation” but investment in human-relevant science, training for reviewers, and the inclusion of experts who actually understand non-animal methods.
Because right now, peer review is less about science and more about coercion. Researchers are told, explicitly or implicitly: harm animals, or your career suffers. That is not impartial. That is not progress. And it is certainly not science.