ReviewFrontiers in medical technology2025
Path dependency and the rescuing of the biomedical research enterprise.
Review in Frontiers in medical technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2025, three U.S. agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (FDA, NIH, CDC) alongside EPA and the Departments of the Navy and Veterans Affairs, began substituting animal testing applications with reliable, human-relevant methods. The impact of this shift in public policy taking place at agencies historically bullish on animal testing is still reverberating in the United States and around the world. Here, we examine the circumstances that enabled such momentous reforms, including the role of the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 in advancing new alternative methods, collectively referred to as NAMs. We explain how animal testing, despite its poor value in predicting the safety and efficacy of drugs in humans, came to dominate drug discovery, basic sciences, and environmental toxicity assessments since the inception of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Federal FD&C Act) in 1938. Specifically, we identify critical junctures, including catastrophic government decisions, that made the overall research enterprise acutely dependent on animals, leading to the existing predicament-an indefensible 92% failure rate in translating drugs from preclinical studies to actual therapies. Notably, our analysis chronicles events through the lens of "path dependency," a social sciences phenomenon that occurs when faulty past decisions lock-in future action. Finally, we recognize that our narrative is a departure from the medical establishment account or the talking points of powerful interest groups, including some in the academic elite who continue to shore up animal-centric paradigms in drug development for reasons we also outline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.