With the growing potential of new technologies such as organoids and organs-on-chips, animal methods are no longer the “gold standard” in scientific research, and more and more governments are recognizing this. India, for example, recently passed several policy and regulatory initiatives to advance the field of human-relevant and non-animal research, including a white paper that lays out a roadmap for developing alternatives to animal experiments.

However, despite this progress, systemic obstacles remain. A previous survey of researchers from around the world found signs of ‘animal methods bias’ within the peer-review process — a process considered central to the credibility of scientific research. Many peer reviewers continue to insist that scientists validate their findings using animal models, resulting in delays, grant rejections, or publication in lower-impact journals when non-animal-based methods are used.

To further explore animal methods bias in India specifically, this study surveyed 100 Indian researchers between October 2024 and January 2025. Participants, who worked in fields ranging from molecular biology to pharmacology, were asked about their experiences with animal-based and non-animal methods and how peer review has influenced their choices. The survey was distributed via email and social media through three India-based organizations, including Humane World for Animals India, Center for Predictive Human Model Systems, and IndiaBioscience.

The results confirm that animal methods bias may be present in India. More than half of surveyed researchers (56%) reported being asked by reviewers to add animal experiments to studies that initially contained none. On average, researchers encountered such requests about eight times, and while most complied selectively, roughly one in five admitted to conducting animal experiments solely in anticipation of reviewer demands. The consequences of being asked to perform additional animal experiments were significant: 59% said these pressures pushed their work into lower-impact journals, 56% experienced manuscript rejections or withdrawals, and 33% noted negative impacts on funding opportunities.

A closer look reveals why researchers complied or resisted. About one out of every four requests were complied with, and those who added animal data often did so because the experiments seemed scientifically justified, feasible, or necessary to secure publication. Those who refused cited feasibility issues, identified the experiments as out-of-scope, or offered non-animal alternatives instead.

When it came to funding decisions, over half of researchers (57%) believed the absence of animal experiments weakened their grant applications. They felt that reviewers perceived non-animal studies as incomplete or lacking novelty, reinforcing systemic beliefs that animal methods are essential despite evidence to the contrary.

This survey provides preliminary, country-specific evidence that aligns with global findings, highlighting persistent animal methods bias amongst peer reviewers. However, advocates should take into consideration that the sample may not be representative of all researchers in India, and that due to the structure of the survey, not all respondents answered all questions.

Nonetheless, the findings underscore the need for widespread reforms, such as greater investment in non-animal research and inclusion of reviewers with expertise in human-relevant technologies. Without addressing this bias, adoption of advanced alternatives risks being slowed, undermining both scientific progress and ethical goals.