Charu Chandrasekera distinctly remembers the moment she realized she needed a career change.
A biomedical researcher, she had been using mice to study heart failure. But everything changed when her father needed a quadruple bypass.
“I looked at him, and all the other people in that ward, and I asked myself, ‘Is the work that I’m doing … ever going to help patients like these?’ And the answer was a resounding no.”
That’s because the information learned using animal testing often doesn’t translate into success in humans. Ninety per cent of drugs tested as safe and effective in animals end up failing in human trials, according to several studies.
She pivoted to developing alternatives to animal testing, founding the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods at Ontario’s University of Windsor in 2017. She helped develop technologies like 3D bioprinted tissues using human cells, to monitor health changes in a petri dish instead of an animal.
But these days, her 3D bioprinter sits in a storage unit. She was forced to close her lab in 2024 due to a lack of funding.
“The centre’s work changed the animal testing conversation in our country. And then it disappeared,” she said. “And only because, unlike in other comparable countries, our government didn’t see it as a priority to fund it.”
Other countries, like the U.K., the United States and the European Union have all dedicated funding and detailed roadmaps to replace animal testing in research settings.
And while Canada has a strategy to replace animals used in chemical and toxicity testing, there is still no plan for those used in biomedical testing, which account for between 40 to 60 per cent of the up to five million animals used in Canadian research settings, every year — one of the highest figures among the G7.
Chandrasekera believes we’re losing out on an opportunity.
“We’re talking about an industry that is expected to be [worth] $30 billion by 2030,” she said. “We are going to move away from animal testing, whether Canada likes it or not.
“So the question is really: ‘Do we want to have a piece of that pie?’”
Heart attack in a dish
For the history of scientific research, animal testing has been the gold standard in understanding human diseases and ensuring the safety of drugs, vaccines, and consumer products. But in 2006, Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka’s Nobel-prize winning work on stem cells paved the way for human cells to be used instead.
“This is really the first time that we can change that,” said Milica Radisic.
Radisic is a professor at the University of Toronto and also Canada Research Chair in Organ-on-a-chip Engineering. She has developed a way to grow living heart tissue — complete with muscle and “blood vessels” — that beats rhythmically like a real heart.
The old way to test the effects of heart attacks was to induce one in an animal. This new technology means that process can instead be performed on cells in a dish by lowering their oxygen levels.
“When we do that, we see it really slows down and stops beating. Then we can apply molecules, biologics or drugs that we believe will help rescue this heart muscle. And then we take it from there.”
The organ-on-a-chip is one of many technologies in development around the world, alongside tools like in-vitro methods and AI computational models, looking to fill a gap in how we do biomedical research.
“It is not about taking one animal test and replacing it with one human test,” said Chandrasekera. “It’s really about taking the best possible technologies we have at our disposal, asking questions that are relevant to our biology and answering them using very creative methods.”
Now, Radisic says, they just need to prove it to regulators.
“We are not just as good — we are better than animal models,” she said. “It is the job of all of us scientists … to prove to the regulators that our models are good enough. And that’s where all of the work is going right now.”
The roles of the regulators
Right now, to get certain funding, Canadian researchers must go through the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), a non-profit responsible for the ethical standards in using animals for science.
Before experiments can begin, a CCAC peer-review panel will look at the 3R’s: replace animals where possible, reduce their numbers and refine how they’re used.
“If a researcher decides, ‘I think I can do the first part of my study on a chip,’ that’s good. We’re very happy about it,” said CCAC executive director Pierre Verrault.
Verreault said that he is seeing more alternatives in research, but some animal testing is still required to fully validate the data and fulfil the government’s public safety requirement.
Canada needs to take a leadership role and not just watch from the sidelines.– Charu Chandrasekera
“Are we going to still need animals in the future? Yes. Forever? Hopefully not.”
Ultimately, Health Canada determines whether an alternative method is acceptable, and has begun to adopt them in certain conditions. In 2023, the federal government passed Bill C-47, directly banning cosmetic testing on animals. That year, it also passed Bill S-5, shaped in part by Chandrasekera, which led to the release of a detailed strategy for animal testing in toxicology.
As for animals in biomedical settings, there is no set plan to replace them. In an email, a Health Canada spokesperson said the department continues to assess new technologies.
Can we end animal testing?
Some researchers are doubtful that animal testing can be ended anytime soon.
“Animal models often give us the first glimpse of what is actually going on by allowing us to ask questions we simply can’t do in human samples,” said Michael Czubryt, a physiology professor at the University of Manitoba.
Czubryt uses mice to study heart failure, and says that in his research it’s important to look at how organs interact with each other — which isn’t quite possible in a petri dish.
“If you look at the organs in isolation, you will learn stuff, but you’ll also miss some of the important biology that’s there,” he said.
“And we can’t afford to do that. We really need to get that larger picture.”
Lucie Côté says she’s seeing more of these tools being implemented, but she wants to make sure it’s done safely.
“I think the important point is that science should guide us; it shouldn’t be politics or personal opinion,” said Côté, a veterinarian and president of the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Medicine at McGill University.
“We all have loved ones that benefited from the advancements in biomedical research. And I think everyone can understand that we need to advance in a very cautious way.”
Funding will pave the way
In March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced its latest push to find animal alternatives for drug development, alongside an investment of $150 million US from the National Institutes of Health. Last November, the U.K. announced a roadmap for alternative methods, including £75 million for new technologies.
Here in Canada, no money has been proposed to help fund these shifts.
Radisic says that while she understands Ottawa’s budget constraints amidst U.S. tariffs and a weakening economy, she believes funding alternatives will pay off in the long run.
“These 3D tissue models are going to be ultimately cheaper than animal studies,” she said. “[It’s] not just that they are less cruel than animal studies.”
Without that funding, Chandrasekera says she and researchers like her will be forced to leave Canada to develop their technologies elsewhere.
“Canada needs to take a leadership role and not just watch from the sidelines,” she said.
“I just don’t understand why we can’t collectively come together and just say, ‘OK, this is what’s broken. Let’s fix it.’”
