ABSTRACT
The use of animals in neuroscience and biomedical research remains controversial. Policy is built around the "3R" principle of "Refining, Reducing and Replacing" animal experiments, and across the globe, different initiatives stimulate the use of animal-free methods. Based on an extensive literature screen to map the development and adoption of animal-free methods in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease research, we find that at least two in three examined studies rely on animals or on animal-derived models. Among the animal-free studies, the relative contribution of innovative models that may replace animal experiments is limited. We argue that the distinction between animal research and alternative models presents a false dichotomy, as the role and scientific value of both animal and animal-free approaches are intertwined. Calls to halt all animal experiments appear premature, as insufficient non-animal-based alternatives are available and their development lags behind. In light of this, we highlight the need for objective, unprejudiced monitoring, and more robust performance indicators of animal-free approaches.