Editorial

In this issue of ATLA, we have published papers exploring a range of ethical issues relating to animal-free science. The paper by Mooren and colleagues ¹ report that the larvae of Galleria mellonella, the greater wax moth, can be employed as a new approach methodology, replacing mouse models for screening image contrast agents. New approach methodologies (NAMs) are often thought of as being ‘non-animal’ — for example, organs-on-chips or cell cultures (even if these were originally derived from animal material). The moth larvae offer a more physiologically active environment for assessing systemic effects than can currently be achieved with in vitro systems. As invertebrates (except for cephalopods) are currently excluded from oversight by any authority regulating animal use in science, the use of G. mellonella offers an alternative with a seemingly lower level of moral concern. I found this paper interesting not only because of the model itself, but mainly because it affords an approach to reducing the need for vertebrate testing in early-stage research, while maintaining physiological relevance. A transition to animal-free science requires multiple approaches and steps. This paper, in highlighting a ‘relative replacement’, is an encouragement to find novel approaches to addressing ethical issues associated with animal-based science.

A further ethical issue, this one relating to affinity reagents derived from animals, is tackled by Gray and Gough in their review, Replacing immunisation-dependent antibody reagent production. ² Last year, the UK Government released its Replacing Animals in Science strategy, aimed at accelerating the uptake of NAMs and reducing reliance on animal procedures. The strategy included a commitment to end animal-based polyclonal reagent production by 2030. Gray and Gough review progress to date, noting that current UK national statistics do not transparently capture the scale or distribution of antibody reagent production procedures across research, regulatory and commercial contexts. They note that, while ending animal use for antibody production is a commendable goal, it requires practical, regulatory and infrastructural changes that are currently not in place.

ATLA 54(4) also includes two Comment articles. Both articles highlight ethical considerations. Ulman et al. ³ consider the emerging bioethical conflicts between One Health and animal experimentation. The article is based upon work from the Ethics Crossover Group within the COST Action ‘Improving the Quality of Biomedical Science with 3Rs Concepts’ (IMPROVE). Their careful examination results in considerations of how a multispecies ethics approach could help create a more ethical ecosystem that is aligned with the wellbeing of all life on a shared planet, rather than a simple focus on human health.

The second Comment ⁴ is based on an expert panel discussion that occurred during the 2025 Chief Data & Analytics Officer Canada Public Sector meeting. Like Ulman et al., Bhuller and colleagues recognise that a One Health approach is key — in this instance accounting for the risks to human and animal health, as well as the environment. The panelists discussed how transformative change (e.g. a shift toward solutions based on the best available science that are also more humane and human-relevant) requires a balance between science, ethics and public accountability. They use a ‘Projector Model’ to illustrate how values and ethics must continue to be foundational elements for risk decision making.

This issue’s Spotlight section shines on three award winners: Professor Marize Campos Valadares (Professor of Toxicology at Federal University of Goiás in Brazil) and Catharine E. Krebs (Program Manager at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) have both been awarded Replacing Animal Research’s Changemaker Award, recognising individuals who are making a real difference in the area of animal-free science. The ATLA editorial team are thrilled that former ATLA Editor-in-Chief and Chairman of the FRAME Trustees, Professor Michael Balls, was recently recognised by Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing and ALTEX, and inducted into their ‘3Rs Hall of Honor’ for his work in significantly advancing the Three Rs.

Each year, the Michael Balls Award is presented by Replacing Animal Research, in recognition of Professor Balls’s outstanding dedication to ATLA during his 37 years as Editor-in-Chief. This year, the paper selected was authored by researchers from the Republic of Korea. Development of a 3D-printed canine cardiac disease model for interventional procedure training’ was published in ATLA 53(6), 314–325, and considered by ATLA’s Editorial Board to be the most likely to make the most significant contribution to the reduction, refinement and/or replacement of animal experimentation.

As always, the Resources Round-Up section of ATLA provides readers with variety of resources that may assist both established researchers and students in navigating a path to animal-free science. These include a roadmap toward antibodies that do not require immunisation of animals, and a PhD finder for students interested in pursuing doctoral studies that do not require the use of animals. I encourage you to let ATLA know of any resources that you have developed or find useful in your own practice, so that we can share these with our readers.