I'm a bit confused on whether "other models that may more reliably mimic human biology" generally exist today. The article mentions a couple non-animal models, but do we know that they are better analogues, or are they just ideas of where research might go if people didn't expect in vivo results? The point of in vivo studies, after all, is that it's easy to build artificial models which accidentally strip out some important complicating factor.
> In general, Krebs says, NGO grants for animal-free research tend to be smaller than the longer-term, multimillion-dollar awards offered by government sources such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s biggest funder of biomedical research.
... for now. Given the widely circulated "naughty words" list for grants [1], I would not be surprised at all if this kind of research gets labeled and discarded as "woke" just as well.
Should've thought of that before they started punishing scientists who dissented from gender ideology. Something had to be done to stop it stomping further on the rights of women, children, and gay people.
A friend of mine studies Chlamydia, which, when intracellular, replicates in a structure called an inclusion. So all of the Chlamydia researchers had to rewrite their proposals to say "parasitophorous vacuole" which had fallen out of favor.
