By Julie Strickland, Senior Research Associate and Study Director
As a first-time attendee of the Society of Toxicology annual meeting in late March, I anticipated a conference centered largely on traditional toxicology approaches—especially as it relates to animal studies. What I experienced instead was a field actively evolving, with a strong and shared focus on innovation, integration, and ethical responsibility.
My day-to-day work as a Senior Research Associate and Study Director at Lovelace involves helping sponsors design studies, develop protocols, and ensure compliance through my role on the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). From that perspective, one of my biggest takeaways was the momentum behind new approach methodologies (NAMs)—and, importantly, how they are being positioned within the broader research landscape.
Where NAMs Fit in the Research Framework Today
A central theme throughout the meeting was the rapid advancement of in vitro and in silico models. What stood out in these discussions was not an effort to eliminate animal models entirely—but to supplement and improve them. These tools are becoming increasingly sophisticated and accessible, offering researchers the ability to screen compounds earlier, reduce unnecessary studies, and catch toxic effects that animal models sometimes miss—more efficiently than ever before.
It’s not an either/or conversation.
Across sessions, there was a clear consensus: NAMs are not here to replace animal models outright—at least not in the foreseeable future. Instead, they are being thoughtfully integrated into the research pipeline as complementary tools. Their greatest value lies in helping refine and prioritize which compounds move forward, ultimately reducing unnecessary animal use while improving study design.
In respiratory toxicology, this was especially exciting to see. Technologies like air-liquid interface systems and other in vitro platforms are advancing in ways that closely align with the work we do at Lovelace. Companies like Hesperos are pushing the boundaries with multi-organ “systems on a chip,” evolving from two-organ to five-organ models in just a few years.
These systems offer powerful opportunities to screen for toxicity signals before entering animal models—but they also reinforce the idea that a layered, integrated approach is essential. Each method—computational, in vitro, and in vivo—plays a distinct role in building a complete safety profile.
A Deeper Appreciation for Ethical Frameworks
A standout session for me, “Reevaluating Adversity and the Maximum Tolerated Dose in the Modern Regulatory Environment” presented by Fiona Sewell, Manon Beekhuijzen, and Emily Richmond, focused on humane endpoints and maximum tolerated dose, and it really highlighted just how much thought and rigor goes into study design. The interactive format of the session, with live Q&A and audience response, revealed that even experienced professionals don’t always agree on the “right” approach, underscoring both the complexity of these decisions and the need for continued dialogue.
For me, this was both validating and reassuring. As someone relatively new to toxicology, I’ve had moments of uncertainty about aspects of the work. What this meeting reinforced is that these practices are not arbitrary—they are the result of decades of refinement, shared standards, regulatory guidance, and a genuine commitment to minimizing harm while advancing science.
That perspective also deepened my appreciation for the standards we uphold at Lovelace. Our focus on animal welfare—from enrichment practices to rigorous protocol review—reflects a culture that takes these responsibilities seriously. Being part of that process through IACUC, and then seeing those same values echoed across the broader field, was incredibly meaningful.
Looking Ahead
This first SOT meeting was, for me, about learning and perspective—understanding where the field is today and where it’s headed. Next time, I’ll approach it with a more strategic lens: identifying potential collaborators, exploring how NAMs and in vitro systems could be incorporated into our capabilities, and engaging more directly in conversations about the future of toxicology.
What’s clear is that the field is not moving toward a single solution, but toward a more integrated and thoughtful framework—one that combines innovation with experience, and scientific progress with ethical responsibility.
And that’s a future I’m excited to be part of.