REVIEW article
Front. Med. Technol.
Sec. Pharmaceutical Innovation
Path Dependency, NAMs, and the Rescuing of the Biomedical Research Enterprise
Provisionally accepted- 1Center for a Humane Economy, Maryland, United States
- 2Ivyctory Solutions, Los Angeles, California, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
In 2025, three U.S. agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (FDA, NIH, CDC) alongside , and EPA), alongside the Departments of the Navy and Veterans Affairs, began substituting certain animal testing applications with reliable, human-relevant methods. The impact of this important 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 non-animal 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, testing 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 and 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.
Keywords: Animal testing, cdc, Drug Development, EPA, fda, FDA Modernization Act 2.0 and 3.0, NAMs, New alternative methods
Received: 11 Aug 2025; Accepted: 09 Dec 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Nahle. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Zaher Nahle
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.