1. Raising awareness of animal methods bias and the value of human-based approaches among reviewers and review staff. Expanding awareness of nonanimal approaches and their value in translational success is crucial not only for broader goals to increase uptake of these approaches, but also for mitigating bias against these methods during scientific review. We have found that animal methods bias is caused both by personal preferences for animal methods and by lack of awareness of nonanimal, human-based methods for a given hypothesis or research area.
2. Broadening the pool of nonanimal method expertise available for review. Diversifying review groups with human-based expertise will help mitigate potential reviewer preferences for animal-based methods and ensure that human-based proposals are adequately evaluated for rigor and model suitability.
3. Training reviewers how to identify and mitigate animal methods bias. Some agencies already include bias mitigation modules in their reviewer training, but as far as we are aware, none are specific for animal methods bias. To ensure any possible bias toward animal methods is addressed in broader bias mitigation training, we recommend that trainings be adapted to specifically include a scenario about animal methods bias.
4. Establishing additional bias reporting mechanisms. Additional bias reporting mechanisms for investigators, reviewers, and program staff to report unfair reviews, uncivil conduct, or anything else that could affect the fairness of the review process would ensure that appropriate measures are being taken to mitigate bias of all types, including methodological bias against nonanimal-based approaches.
5. Implementing evaluation criteria and reviewer guidelines to encourage unbiassed assessment of projects. Implementing specific criteria and guidelines to evaluate proposals will ensure impartiality toward animal- and nonanimal-based approaches and that funded projects are meritorious.
6. Creating nonanimal-specific funding streams. Dedicating specific funding opportunities towards human-based projects ensures that they do not compete with animal-based projects, and that review groups can tailor expertise to more specific methodologies.
7. Assessing animal methods bias prevalence and impact. Understanding the breadth of animal methods bias and its specific characteristics in different research areas and funding contexts will be helpful for addressing it appropriately and holistically. The COLAAB recommends assessing review reports and comments during review group meetings for evidence of bias toward animal methods and the resulting impacts on funding rates.