Have you heard the term “NAMs,” or New Approach Methods? It’s a phrase that’s gaining real traction across scientific fields, and for good reason. These emerging tools are reshaping how researchers study biology, disease, and safety, with the long-term goals of building stronger translational models and reducing reliance on animal studies.
But, like many scientific advances, the reality is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.
What Are NAMs?
In 2022, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) formally highlighted NAMs as a major initiative in research and regulatory science. They define NAMs as:
“Technologies and approaches (including computational modeling, in vitro assays, and testing using alternative animal species) that can inform hazard and risk assessment decisions without the use of animal testing.”
This umbrella term encompasses a wide range of tools, such as:
- Lab-grown tissues like organoids and 3D cell cultures
- Stem cell-derived model systems
- Computational and AI-driven models
- High-throughput screening platforms
These technologies allow researchers to study biological processes in more human-relevant systems and at a faster pace than traditional methods. NAMs are quickly becoming a priority area for investment by the National Institutes of Health.
Why All The Excitement?
NAMs offer some clear advantages.
They can reduce the number of animals in research, provide insights using human-derived cells and tissues, and enable new types of analysis through computational modeling, all while increasing experimental throughput.
There’s also an ethical motivation, as moving toward systems that don’t rely on animals is a widely shared goal across the scientific community in alignment with the 3Rs: replacement, reduction, and refinement of studies to ensure the most considered use of animal models. Most importantly, this isn’t just theoretical. Right here in Oregon, researchers have been developing and applying NAMs for over a decade, building cutting-edge tools like organoids, stem cell models, and computational databases.
So, Why Haven’t NAMs Replaced Animal Research?
Here’s where expectations and reality sometimes diverge.
When people first hear about NAMs, it’s easy to assume they’re ready to fully replace animal studies. That may be a possibility in the far future, but that’s not where the science stands today. Biological systems are extraordinarily complex, involving interactions between multiple organ systems, immune, hormonal, and metabolic responses with their own feedback loops, and dynamic real-time physiological changes.
No current in vitro system, no matter how advanced, can fully replicate all of that, and that’s why animal studies still play a critical role in characterizing and understanding these systems by providing the whole-system context that many diseases and treatments require.
.png)
Image created using Canva
Collaboration, Not Competition
The most productive way to think about NAMs isn’t as replacements, but as collaborators.
NAMs and animal studies each bring their strengths:
- NAMs excel at controlled, high-throughput, and human-specific insights
- Animal studies provide integrated, system-level understanding with complex physiological interactions
Used together, they create a more complete and reliable scientific picture.
Even more interesting: many of today’s most promising NAMs, like organoids and advanced cell models, were developed using knowledge originally gained from animal studies. Many are even built with animal-derived materials. Maintenance and growth of organoids and 3D cell cultures (to expand resources and provide experimental model systems), for example, often rely on enzymes and growth substrates that come from animal sources. That’s the nature of scientific progress: each generation builds on the last. While these tools may not be able to outright replace the need for animals yet, they can reduce the number of animals needed for a study.
The Road Ahead
There’s no question that NAMs are the future. The momentum is real, and the goal of significantly reducing animal use is widely supported.
But getting there responsibly matters.
Developing NAMs isn’t just about innovation; it requires careful validation and rigorous characterization alongside animal models to be confident that these new models can reliably predict real-world outcomes in a complex organism.
Rushing that process by relying solely on AI and/or computational models (known as in silico methods) could compromise human safety and scientific integrity.
Science in Progress, Right Here at Home
Across the United States and beyond, researchers are actively working toward this future: investing in NAMs while maintaining high standards for current research. For example, researchers at the Oregon National Primate Research Center are actively exploring placental organoids to better understand how oxygen dysregulation in the first trimester of pregnancy can lead to conditions like preeclampsia or fetal growth restriction.
The takeaway is simple but important:
Animal studies and NAMs aren’t in opposition. They’re part of the same continuum of progress.
Today’s studies, whether in animals or advanced in vitro systems, are laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s breakthroughs. And with continued investment and careful science, NAMs will only become more powerful, more predictive, and more central to our understanding of human health.
NAMs aren’t just a buzzword; they’re a real shift in science, just not an overnight one.