01816nas a2200205   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043100002100058700001900079700002100098700002700119700001700146245009000163856004600253300001200299490000700311520127800318022001401596       2024                            d  c2024-09-011 aRachel A. Ankeny1 aGail F. Davies1 aRobert G.W. Kirk1 aAlexandra L. Whittaker1 aJane Johnson00aLessons for the Future of NAMs from History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science  uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/02611929241267763  a276-2840 v523 aThis paper explores what we can learn from the humanities and social sciences about how standards operate in and around science, in order to understand more about how ‘the gold standard’ can be shifted away from the use of animals in research and testing, and toward New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). These fields allow us to consider potential futures of NAMs as alternatives, replacements, or complements to animal use in testing and research. As we demonstrate, the questions that we pose and how they are framed are as important as the answers that result. Rather than asking how to ‘redefine the gold standard’, norms and expectations for NAMs must be actively debated and transparently defined. These considerations would be based, in part, on what has been learned in the past from non-human animal models and systems, but also use the norms within the fields from which the NAMs derive in light of the rich broader contexts within which they are being developed. As we argue, notions such as ‘a gold standard’ are limited and must be replaced by contextualised standards that depend on the scientific, sociocultural and other factors that contribute to our understanding of a particular method (new or otherwise) as ‘good’ for a particular purpose.  a0261-1929