Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias
LightNews LightNews
banner
thecolaab.bsky.social
Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias
@thecolaab.bsky.social
70 followers 89 following 130 posts
The Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias is a global collaboration addressing the preference for animal-based research methods or the lack of expertise to adequately evaluate nonanimal methods.
https://www.animalmethodsbias.org/
Posts Replies Media Videos
thecolaab.bsky.social
The UK Home Office's new strategy, "Replacing animals in science: A strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of alternative methods," is an important step toward embracing nonanimal methods.

We took a look at how it will help mitigate #AnimalMethodsBias. 🧵

#scipub #scipol 🧪
A graphic with a photo of Big Ben on the left and the following text: "Animal methods bias update. UK Home Office will take measures to reduce animal methods bias in publishing. New strategy promises to: "Strengthen the commitment of journal editors to publishing research using alternative methods."" The COLAAB logo is in the bottom right corner.
November 13, 2025 at 2:30 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
🧛‍♂️ Happy Halloween! What’s scarier than a bad review?

🍬 Reviewers handing out ‘add animal experiments’ comments like candy—even when your human-based study is solid.

👻 Don’t let #AnimalMethodsBias haunt your next paper.

Learn how to protect your work: www.animalmethodsbias.org
Well-known 4-panel meme of SpongeBob SquarePants reading a paper and then throwing the paper into the fire and warming his hands. In this version, the paper reads, "Reviewer 3: "These in vitro findings must be validated in an animal model," and SpongeBob is wearing a purple witch hat.
October 31, 2025 at 12:43 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Has a reviewer ever suggested you perform an extra experiment? 🧪

We’re guessing most of you will say yes.

In 2011, Hidde Ploegh dubbed these suggestions “reviewer experiments” and boldly called for an end to their “wasteful tyranny.”

#SciPub #PeerReview #Reviewer3 #Bioethics
Screenshot from the April 27, 2011 Nature World View article by Hidde Ploegh titled "End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments." The authors of this post have added to the title, making it "End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer animal experiments." The article has been accessed 18,000 times, cited 41 times, and has an altmetric score of 488. The subtitle reads: "Peer review of scientific papers in top journals is bogged down by unnecessary demands for extra lab work, argues Hidde Ploegh."
October 20, 2025 at 12:05 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Mark your calendars! The COLAAB's Dr. Catharine Krebs will be speaking about #AnimalMethodsBias at the 2025 Animalfree Research Foundation Forum.

"Perception and Power: Barriers to Animal-Free Research" will be on Monday, Nov 10 from 7 - 11am EST.

www.animalmethodsbias.org/events/colaa...
A screenshot from Animalfree Research’s registration webpage for “Perception and Power: Barriers to Animal-Free Research.” The description reads: “Our 15th Forum on the barriers to animal-free research will take place on 10th November 2025 at the Volkshaus Zurich. It is aimed at all people interested in animal-free research and will be held in English. We accept registrations until 5th November 2025.” On the right, there’s a photo of a fluffy orange cat looking into an oval mirror with an ornate gold frame. A lion is reflected in the mirror, looking back at the cat.
September 22, 2025 at 3:11 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Read our survey of India-based researchers documenting firsthand experiences of animal methods bias in manuscript and grant #peerreview.

doi.org/10.1016/j.na...
NAM Journal Volume 1, 2025, 100042 A survey to evaluate animal methods bias experienced by India-based researchers in the peer review of manuscripts and grant applications Surat Parvatam a Karishma Kaushik b Kasturi Mahadik c Goutami Nayak c Tejaswini Dhurde c Francesca Pistollato d Helder Constantino d Bipasha Gautam a Harshita Mittal a Catharine E. Krebs e
September 15, 2025 at 7:24 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Read our workshop proceedings on how #AnimalMethodsBias can impact grant reviews and funding decisions, plus action steps for researchers and funders.
doi.org/10.1016/j.na...
NAM Journal Volume 1, 2025, 100004 NAM Journal Meeting Report Exploring animal methods bias in biomedical research funding: Workshop proceedings and action steps Author links open overlay panel Catharine E. Krebs a Sven Geissler b Kathrin Herrmann c Kenneth Kandaras d Owen Kavanagh e Laura M. Langan f Francesca Pistollato g Sandeep Raha h Ignacio J. Tripodi i Emily R. Trunnell j
September 15, 2025 at 7:24 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Want to learn more or take action?

Here are some resources:

Read our Author Guide for researchers using animal-free methods to help them push back against unnecessary reviewer requests. 👉
www.animalmethodsbias.org/author-guide
Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing. The COLAAB developed this guide to help ensure the fair dissemination of animal-free research and to prevent unnecessary experiments on animals. It is intended to be used by authors who use nonanimal methods and may help prevent and address animal methods bias from manuscript reviewers.
September 15, 2025 at 7:24 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
It’s #PeerReviewWeek! We're raising awareness about a methods-based peer review bias, akin to methodological dogmatism or scholarly bias.

#AnimalMethodsBias: reviewers' preference for animal-based methods or lack of expertise leading to unfair assessments of animal-free studies

#SciPub 🧪

🧵
Text over a photograph of people's hands and arms looking over papers, fading to blue. The text reads: "Fair peer review is critical - for science, for patients, and for animals. This Peer Review Week, we call on publishers, funders, and meta-researchers to investigate and address Animal Methods Bias."
September 15, 2025 at 7:24 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Experiences like what @mvangriensven.bsky.social
has been through are why we formed the @thecolaab.bsky.social.

No one should be coaxed into doing experiments on animals just because manuscript reviewers think they “would be nice to have.”
LinkedIn post from Martijn van Griensven, Chair of the Department CBITE at MERLN, Maastricht University. The post reads: "we have now two papers rejected after revision just because we did not include in vivo experiments! We have a lot of in vitro data and that is also acknowledged by the reviewers. But for each paper, one of the reviewers wants in vivo data as that would be nice to have....and then after revising all the comments and stating in vivo is out of the scope and with getting the licence etc. would be more than one year we cannot include in vivo data, the editors of "International Journal of Biological Macromolecules" from Elsevier and "Frontiers in Biotechnology and bioengineering" just rejected it on that fact.... they should state in their guidelines you cannot publish with them without in vivo data...(which is going against the trend of trying to diminish in vivo experiments)...." It has been liked 490 times, has 50 comments, had has been shared in 19 reposts.
September 9, 2025 at 6:16 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
We also included a Q about grant review, something we’ve previously only explored anecdotally (www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...).

~Half of respondents said they felt the lack of animal experiments in their grant proposal negatively influenced its evaluation (57%; 47 of 83 respondents).
August 25, 2025 at 3:37 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Respondents reported complying with just one in four of these requests on average (24%)!

About a quarter of respondents even said they’ve used animal-based methods solely because they expected editor or reviewer requests for them (22%; 16 of 72 respondents).
August 25, 2025 at 3:37 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
In line with previous findings in a global population (altex.org/index.php/al...), about half of respondents said they’ve been asked by manuscript reviewers to add animal experiments to their otherwise nonanimal studies (56%; 39 of 70 respondents).
August 25, 2025 at 3:37 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
🚨 New findings of #AnimalMethodsBias! 🧪

Just published in NAM Journal, our study surveyed India-based researchers about their experiences with animal methods bias in the #peerreview of manuscripts and grant applications:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Screenshot from the PDF version of the linked paper, "A survey to evaluate animal methods bias experienced by India-based researchers in the peer review of manuscripts and grant applications."
August 25, 2025 at 3:37 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Also be sure to pick up a copy of our newest resource!

These guidelines and recommendations were generated through interviews with publishing professionals and can help editors and peer reviewers fairly evaluate nonanimal studies and reduce animal methods bias.

🧪 #SciPub
Dark blue background with a faded illustration of an organoid. The text reads: “Peer review guidelines for reporting and evaluating in vitro studies.” The COLAAB logo is at the bottom.
August 22, 2025 at 12:29 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Attn #WC13 attendees: Don't miss this talk by COLAAB member @ertrunnell.bsky.social

She'll discuss what #AnimalMethodsBias is, the evidence for it, & how @thecolaab.bsky.social has been working to reduce barriers for #NAMs scientists.

Wed at 11:30!

www.animalmethodsbias.org/events/colaa...
Graphic showing the logo for the 2025 13th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, a background image of Rio de Janeiro, and a photo of Emily Trunnell. The text reads: “3Rs Integrating 3 Worlds. Human, Animal, and Environmental Health. August 31 – September 5, 2025. Addressing animal methods bias in scientific publishing. Wed Sept 3 11:30am. Session #74. I am speaking!”
August 22, 2025 at 12:29 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Another COLAAB recommendation takes flight! 🕊️

On July 7, NIH announced it will no longer exclude #NAMs from #NOFOs or seek animal-only proposals. 🧪

These are key steps to curb #AnimalMethodsBias, as suggested in our 2024 workshop report: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
July 9, 2025 at 10:19 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
In our recent Editor Outreach project, we explored the possibility of opening peer review reports as a way for meta-researchers to measure occurrences of animal methods bias in various research fields and demographics.

More about this project: www.animalmethodsbias.org/projects/edi...
Screenshot from the linked webpage, under the section titled "Proposed interventions." The following sentence is highlighted: "Making peer review reports available for external meta-researchers to investigate possible occurrences of animal methods bias in various research fields and demographics."
July 1, 2025 at 12:25 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
The COLAAB has suggested open peer review as a way to improve research quality, transparency, and reproducibility—and to prevent biases, including animal methods bias.

See section 3.1 of our Author Guide: advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Screenshot from section 3.1 of the linked paper, with the following sentence highlighted: "Among other benefits, open peer review may improve the quality, transparency, and reproducibility of research, and it may prevent or mitigate biases, including animal methods bias."
July 1, 2025 at 12:25 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
In June, @nature.com announced it will make transparent peer review the norm for research articles. Reviewer comments and author responses will be published alongside articles, something @thecolaab.bsky.social has long advocated for as a way to track #AnimalMethodsBias.

#peerreview #transparency 🧪
Graphic with an image of several beige doors in a row, with one orange open door. Text on the graphic reads: "Update. Nature commits to transparent peer review. As of June 16, all new research articles submitted to the journal will automatically include the reviewers' reports and authors responses. Policies like these can facilitate the identification and mitigation of animal methods bias." At the bottom is the COLAAB logo and website: www.animalmethodsbias.org.
July 1, 2025 at 12:25 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Don't miss this @cp-cellstemcell.bsky.social interview with Dan Tagle, Director of the Office for Special Initiatives at NCATS. Dr. Tagle gives a nod to the COLAAB-recommended actions NIH will take to mitigate #AnimalMethodsBias. 🧪

doi.org/10.1016/j.st...
Quote graphic with a blue background and large yellow and red circles. The quote reads, "[G]rant review staff will participate in mitigation training to address any possible bias toward animal studies and integrate experts on alternative methods into study sections." and is attributed to Danilo Tagle, Ph.D., Director of the Office for Special Initiatives, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and includes his headshot. The quote is from the Cell Stem Cell paper DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2025.05.009. The COLAAB logo is at the bottom left.
June 12, 2025 at 2:34 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
🎉 These are all policy changes we have been advocating for!

See for yourself in Table 2 of our most recent paper describing our 2024 workshop on animal methods bias in funding assessments: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
April 30, 2025 at 6:35 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Last week wrapped up our recommendations for researchers on mitigating #AnimalMethodsBias in grant #PeerReview!

We hope you learned something about the important role researchers can play. 🧪

All tips we shared can be found in one place on our website:

🔗 www.animalmethodsbias.org/projects/res...
What Researchers Can Do Researchers who use nonanimal methods can play a crucial role in addressing animal methods bias. In addition to following the advice in our Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing to prevent and address animal methods bias during the review of manuscripts for publication, researchers can implement the recommendations below to address animal methods bias in the review of grant applications. These recommendations emerged from a 2024 COLAAB workshop titled “Workshop to Explore Animal Methods Bias in Biomedical Research Funding.” Workshop proceedings and action steps for not just researchers but also funders can be found in this COLAAB publication. Recommendations for researchers are summarized here and expanded on below.
April 21, 2025 at 3:00 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
One week until our advocacy webinar on #WD4AIL!

Join us in honoring animals in laboratories by:

📑 Learning how you can engage with funding agencies
🐁 Advocating for #AnimalMethodsBias mitigation
⚖️ Leveling the playing field for #NAMs

Register here: us06web.zoom.us/meeting/regi...
Blue and yellow flyer for the webinar, "How to advocate for fair funding and overcome animal methods bias." Hosted by the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB). Held on April 24, 2025 at 11 am ET / 5 pm CET. This is a virtual webinar and registration is required.
April 17, 2025 at 2:20 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
Researchers should be advocates too! ✊

Our final week of tips on how you can help mitigate #AnimalMethodsBias focuses on the important role researchers play in policy.

#scipol #sciencepolicy 🧪
Mitigating animal methods bias in grant review. Tip #6. Engage in advocacy efforts. Advocate for policies and initiatives that support the development and use of NAMs and the mitigation of animal methods bias As NAMs continue to advance, it is important for researchers to recognize their key stakeholder position and paramount role in advocacy. Researchers with expertise in NAMs and first-hand experience with bias can provide funders and policymakers with crucial perspectives and input. Researchers should seek out advocacy opportunities—including providing public comments, responding to requests for information, providing testimony to lawmakers, and publishing perspectives, letters to the editor, and op-eds—to comment on the advantages of nonanimal methods over animals, champion their broader development and use, and encourage measures to overcome barriers like animal methods bias.
April 14, 2025 at 3:13 PM
thecolaab.bsky.social
💡 This week’s tips for mitigating #AnimalMethodsBias focus on how you can use #OpenScience practices to improve confidence in #NAMs and address the hesitancy of some reviewers to embrace animal-free methods. 🧪

#peerreview #peerreviewbias #nonanimalresearch #newapproachmethodologies
"Mitigating Animal Methods Bias in Grant Review. Tip #5. Engage in and promote open science practices." "Engage in and promote open science practices like systemic reviews, data sharing, preregistration, and open access publishing. Confidence in NAMs and other nonanimal methods is still being established. Open science practices foster transparency, rigor, and reproducibility. Over time, this can help boost confidence in NAMs and may address the hesitancy of some reviewers to embrace animal-free methods."
April 7, 2025 at 5:19 PM