The Mitigation Working Group of the COLAAB engages in advocacy efforts to encourage funders of biomedical research to address review-related barriers facing researchers who use nonanimal approaches.
Recommendations for Funders
In letters and public comments, the COLAAB provides recommendations for funders to mitigate animal methods bias, including:
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
Learn more about our recent funder advocacy below.
Public Comments and Letters
November 2025
Following the announcement of a new initiative at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to prioritize human-based research—including measures to address bias toward animal methods—the COLAAB submitted a letter detailing further recommendations for ensuring human-based research is reviewed fairly. The letter cited evidence from COLAAB-conducted surveys, workshops, and an analysis demonstrating that predominantly animal-based expertise in NIH review groups is correlated with lower funding rates for projects that use nonanimal methods.
After corresponding with an agency representative, we were encouraged by what we learned. Here were our main takeaways:
- The NIH Center for Scientific Review employs a rolling, data-driven evaluation of study sections called ENQUIRE.
- A recurring theme in recent ENQUIRE evaluations has been the need to explicitly include NAMs among topics covered by study sections, including organoids, organ-on-a-chip methods, and computational modeling.
- To accommodate substantial growth in applications using NAMs, study section descriptions are being updated to more clearly welcome these proposals. In some cases, new study sections are being formed to better fit emerging methods.
- The Center for Scientific Review is actively recruiting reviewers with NAMs expertise as needed to cover study sections with large numbers of NAMs-based applications.
- Lacking animal experiments does not weaken an application. Investigators, reviewers, and staff who witness unfair or biased reviews in favor of animal methods or against NAMs should report concerns in a timely manner. The Center for Scientific Review investigates every report. If it finds that fair review was compromised, the application will be re-reviewed and practices will be adjusted to reduce the likelihood of the same issue recurring. Learn more about reporting biases here.
March 2024
The NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) oversees activities that aim for fair, expert, and timely scientific review to ensure that the agency funds the most promising research. For the March 2024 CSR Advisory Council meeting, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine submitted a written public comment on behalf of the COLAAB regarding actions the Center can take to address animal methods bias.
Requests for Information
December 2025
The COLAAB submitted a response to a US White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Request for Information on federal policy updates to accelerate the American scientific enterprise. Our response addressed a specific question within the request: What empirically grounded findings from metascience research and progress studies could inform federal grantmaking processes to maximize scientific productivity and increase total return on investment?
To address this question, we first demonstrated with empirical evidence how animal methods bias can hinder human health research by limiting funding rates and dissemination of more clinically relevant nonanimal studies. We then provided recommendations for working with research funding agencies to mitigate animal methods bias.
March 2024
On behalf of the COLAAB, Science Advancement and Outreach submitted a response to a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Request for Information (RFI) on Potential Solutions for Reducing Publication Bias Against Null Studies. The purpose of the RFI was to solicit public input on barriers and solutions to reduce publication bias in biomedical research.
Our response discussed the detrimental consequences of animal methods bias, as well as how bias against null studies can distort interpretations and opinions of animal research and result in misrepresentations of its precision and translatability. The response included mitigation strategies for authors, scientists, journals, and publishers to address animal methods bias that may be helpful for incentivizing the dissemination of null studies and initiating solutions to address null study bias.
Are you interested in engaging in funder advocacy?
Learn more about what researchers can do and how you can be involved with funder advocacy!