top of page

Why Now Is the Time for Organ-on-Chip Companies to Step Up and Lead the Human-Based Research Revolution

Updated: Jul 30

Henning Mann, PhD, HM.BioConsulting

 

“Growth in this field depends on reaching the toxicologists, clinical development leads, and investment committees who have never encountered the term “context of use.” That conversation has to leave the MPS and NAM bubble.”


Download PDF"


🚨 Regulator-Backed Policy Changes and Momentum


In April 2025, the FDA published its Roadmap to Reducing Animal Testing in Preclinical Safety Studies, a stepwise plan to phase down reliance on animal models and prioritize New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), including organ-on-chip (OoC) platforms, organoids, and computational models. Days later, NIH announced its own companion shift, committing to prioritize human-based research technologies in funding decisions and creating a new internal office, ORIVA, to coordinate the effort across its institutes.


A year on, this is no longer a stated intention. It has become an operating reality with guidance documents, funded programs, and legislative momentum behind it. For OoC companies, the moment to step forward and take command of an accelerating market opportunity is not on the horizon; it is here.



📈 What's New in 2026


The past twelve months have turned policy signals into concrete regulatory and legislative infrastructure. The most consequential developments:


•      FDA Modernization Act 3.0 is nearly law. On July 20, 2026, the U.S. House passed H.R. 2821 by unanimous consent, directing FDA to finally align its regulations with the 2022 FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which had already removed the federal mandate for animal testing in law but left agency regulations unchanged. The Senate passed an identical companion bill, S. 355, in December 2025, so a procedural Senate vote and the President's signature are the remaining steps.


•      A one-year progress report with teeth. On April 20, 2026, FDA released Reducing Animal Testing in Nonclinical Studies: Year One Progress and the Path Forward, reporting that it made the ISTAND (Innovative Science and Technology Approaches for New Drugs) pilot a permanent program, updated monoclonal antibody guidance to remove the standard six-month nonhuman primate study requirement, and began transitioning away from horseshoe crab-derived endotoxin testing.


•      A validation framework OoC companies can build against. FDA's March 2026 draft guidance, General Considerations for the Use of New Approach Methodologies in Drug Development, sets out four validation principles that any NAM submission is judged against: context of use, human biological relevance, technical characterization, and fit-for-purpose. This gives vendors a concrete checklist rather than an open-ended validation burden.


•      FDA and NIH formalized their collaboration. An August 2025 memorandum of understanding between the two agencies is intended to accelerate standardization, qualification, and adoption of human-relevant alternatives, building on NIH's ORIVA office and its new funding criteria that weigh translatability and human relevance.


•      Oncology gets its own pathway. A May 2026 draft guidance on streamlined nonclinical safety studies for oncology biologics and conjugated products lets sponsors propose shortened, risk-based toxicology programs, including non-sacrificial study designs, for certain cancer therapeutics.


•      The pipeline is filling. FDA reports roughly 151 NAM-related drug development tool projects in its qualification pipeline, including the ISTAND submission for Emulate's Liver-Chip evaluating drug-induced liver injury, the clearest signal yet that a named OoC platform can move through a formal FDA qualification track.


•      Europe organized its own industry voice. On February 10, 2026, in Brussels, nine MPS providers, AlveoliX (Switzerland), BiomimX (Italy), chiron (Netherlands), Dynamic42 (Germany), InSphero (Switzerland), MIMETAS (Netherlands), NETRI (France), React4Life (Italy), and TissUse (Germany), founded IAMPS, the Industry Alliance for Microphysiological Systems, the first trade association dedicated to representing MPS providers. Thibault Honegger of NETRI was elected President, with Paola Occhetta of BiomimX as Vice-President for Regulatory Adoption and Partnerships and Jos Joore of MIMETAS as Vice-President for Legislation and Programs. IAMPS becomes operational in the second quarter of 2026 and has set out early priorities that include engagement with EMA and international regulators, data-sharing platforms between MPS developers and end users, and standardization work with the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods.


A trade association forming is itself worth pausing on. The MPS and OoC field remains relatively small with regards to vendors and pharma champions worldwide, and a regulatory community that is still a specialist audience even as it grows more receptive. IAMPS's own founding statement names the core adoption problem directly: getting devices into the hands of scientists and regulators who sit outside the MPS world today.


Growth in this field depends on reaching the toxicologists, clinical development leads, and investment committees who have never encountered the term “context of use.” That conversation has to leave the MPS and NAM bubble. 


Conferences, journals, and LinkedIn posts aimed at an audience that already agrees are useful for coordinating the field internally, but they do little on their own to expand who considers MPS a viable option.


The 3Rs Collaborative, a Denver-based nonprofit, is one of the few organizations built specifically to make that translation work. Its MPS Initiative brings together more than 40 commercial MPS providers with end-users, regulators, and nonprofits in a single working group, rather than leaving each vendor to make its case alone. The group runs quarterly webinars pairing developers with FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the IQ Consortium's MPS group, maintains the MPS Tech Hub referenced above, and in 2026 is running a coordinated benchmarking study on drug-induced liver injury designed to give regulators comparable data across several vendors' liver chips at once. Pooled, cross-company evidence like that is exactly what individual vendors struggle to produce alone, and it reaches skeptical, non-MPS audiences more credibly than any single company's marketing material can.



🧠 NIH, FDA, GAO, and BIO: The Forces Still Aligning Behind Organ-on-Chip


•      NIH policy (2025-2026): Grant funding criteria now explicitly weigh context of use, translatability, and human relevance, with ORIVA coordinating the shift across institutes. See the NIH announcement.


•      FDA roadmap and Year One report: A structured, now-reported-on plan to reduce reliance on animal models in favor of NAMs that better reflect human biology. See the Roadmap and the Year One progress report.


•      GAO report (May 2025): The Government Accountability Office's Human Organ-on-a-Chip: Technologies Offer Benefits Over Animal Testing but Challenges Limit Wider Adoption (GAO-25-107335) evaluated the state of OoC technology and confirmed that it can offer real benefits over animal testing, while flagging cost, standardization, and validation gaps as the main barriers to wider adoption. It is a candid document, not a promotional one, and its caveats are as important to industry strategy as its endorsement.


•      BIO's member survey: The Biotechnology Innovation Organization surveyed member companies on NAM use and published case studies of NAM-based regulatory filings that replaced large-animal studies for biotherapeutics, generally accepted by global health authorities where species relevance was limited or disease severity justified the approach. The same survey notes persistent member concern about global regulatory harmonization and clinical translatability, echoing the GAO's findings.



On the science itself, the peer-reviewed literature is more measured than enthusiastic. A 2025 Nature Reviews Drug Discovery review by an EFPIA/PDEG industry working group surveys current and emerging applications of human-derived in vitro systems for nonclinical safety, and a companion Drug Discovery Today paper built on the BIO survey above catalogs specific regulatory filings where NAMs stood in for animal studies.


Neither paper claims that OoC systems categorically outperform animal models; both describe a context-of-use-by-context-of-use case for adoption, which is a more defensible and, frankly, more useful framing for vendors building a regulatory dossier.



Who's Leading, and Where the Money Is Moving


A cohort of OoC vendors is already gaining traction with regulators, pharma, and investors:

•      Emulate has the furthest-advanced regulatory track record, with its Liver-Chip in FDA's ISTAND qualification pipeline for drug-induced liver injury assessment and existing collaborations with AstraZeneca, Roche, and Takeda.


•      CN Bio closed a $21 million Series B in April 2024 to scale its vascularized liver-chip platform.


•      MIMETAS, TissUse, InSphero, Altis Biosystems, and Hesperos round out a landscape now tracked in detail by the 3R Collaborative Tech Hub.


Market analysts are pricing in the regulatory tailwind: a February 2026 Astute Analytica forecast projects the global organ-on-chip market reaching roughly $2.2 billion by 2033, citing FDA's ISTAND acceptance of the first liver-chip submission as a direct driver of pharma adoption and investor interest. That is a forecast, not a guarantee, and the same report is clear that funding is concentrating around platforms with a regulatory story to tell, not around the category as a whole.

 


⚠️ The Challenge: Adoption Still Lags the Technology


The technology has matured considerably over the past decade, moving from conceptual proof-of-concept devices to platforms validated for reproducing key human tissue functions. Full, standardized data sets with clear predictivity scores are still the exception rather than the rule, and that gap, more than the underlying science, is what limits market penetration. Three problems dominate:


1)      Finding the context-of-use niche where a given platform delivers a measurable gain in predicting clinical trial outcomes, rather than a general claim of relevance.


2)      Positioning within the drug development timeline. Cost, complexity, and scalability place different vendors at different points in that timeline relative to existing in vitro and in vivo assays, and pricing needs to reflect where a platform actually sits.


3)      Execution. Partnerships, commercial positioning, and scale remain the deciding factors, and industry-wide standardization of hardware and readouts is becoming a competitive requirement rather than a nice-to-have.


The gap between scientific promise and market impact is where the real opportunity sits. Companies with strong platforms can still lose ground with misaligned positioning, weak commercialization strategy, or messaging that fails to connect human-relevant data to what pharma, regulators, and investors actually need to hear. Technical strength alone no longer differentiates a vendor; regulatory alignment and a credible investor and customer narrative now do.



🚀 What OoC Companies Should Be Doing Right Now


HM.BioConsulting combines decades of combined preclinical industry experience, including hands-on OoC work, with strategic business development expertise. We help companies:


•      Align your roadmap with NIH, FDA, and EMA validation expectations, including the four-principle framework now in FDA's draft guidance.

•      Secure strategic partnerships with CROs, pharma, and agencies.

•      Navigate the regulatory landscape for toxicity, safety, and efficacy applications.

•      Pursue pharmacological validation that demonstrates a clear gain over the current standard-of-care assays.

•      Develop scalable go-to-market plans and licensing paths, and build arguments that resonate with investors and pharma partners.

•      Build a sales narrative, pipeline, and revenue plan.

•      Position clearly in a crowded, fast-moving field.

•      Translate a strong platform into a fundable, scalable business.

•      Craft narratives for non-dilutive funding, co-development, and M&A.

•      Communicate human relevance and translational value to funders and end users.


Even the strongest platform risks being overshadowed in this field without the right business development approach behind it.



🕒 Why Now?


This is a genuine inflection point: NIH has set new funding standards, FDA has laid out validation pathways and reported real progress against them, and Congress is on the verge of closing the last gap between the law and FDA's own regulations through the Modernization Act 3.0. Venture and pharma funding is already moving toward platforms that can tell a credible regulatory story.

The question is no longer whether organ-on-chip technology would take a growing share of preclinical research from animal testing. The open question is now which companies will own that position once the regulatory pathway is fully paved.


🔗 Learn how HM.BioConsulting can help you seize the momentum: www.hmbioconsulting.com



📚 Sources and Further Reading



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page