Improvements Needed In Research If Animal Experiments To Benefit Human Health

Main Category: Public Health
Also Included In: Veterinary
Article Date: 16 Dec 2006 - 10:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

In recent years, the value of animal testing has been the focus of much debate. Some researchers believe that results from animal experiments cannot be applied to humans because of biological differences between animals and humans while others claim that the benefit of animal research is beyond doubt. However, the authors of the paper ‘Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review’, published this week in the BMJ, has found numerous flaws in the way animal experiments are conducted and evaluated in medical research.

The study, which was funded and carried out by the NHS R&D Programme at Universities in Edinburgh, Birmingham and London used a method called ‘systematic review’ to compare the findings from clinical trials with those of the corresponding animal experiments. There were some areas of agreement but also disagreement. The disagreement between animal and human studies resulted from a failure of animal models to mimic the clinical disease adequately. The systematic review methodology provided valuable insights into the limitations of animal models and their clinical relevance, for example many animal experiments were small and of poor methodological quality, with evidence of publication bias in some cases. However, the authors found that the systematic review methodology is rarely used in animal research.

These findings raise questions about whether animal experiments are at present scientifically defensible and what effect this has on the safety and effectiveness of clinical research. The charity SABRE Research UK is calling for the implementation of a large scale research programme to conduct systematic reviews of existing animal studies to determine the value of using animals as experimental models for human diseases.

Supporting quotation:

“As the number of systematic reviews of animal experiments increases, a quantitative approach to the concordance between animal and human trials should be possible in the future, building on the findings of our work.” Professor Ian Roberts.

###

Notes:

Glossary of technical terms:
quantitative = amount, how much, quantity
concordance = similarity, correspondence, agreement

The Society for Accountability of Animal Studies in Biomedical Research & Education (known as SABRE Research UK) is an independent charity without links to any political parties, animal lobby groups or the pharmaceutical industry. We represent the interests of patients and research volunteers by calling for rigorous scientific methods to assess the scientific and medical value of research involving animals.

We welcome this new research commissioned by the NHS R&D Methodology Programme and support the call for a large-scale programme of systematic reviews of existing animal studies in order to provide more insight into the value of animal research to human medicine.

Contact: Professor Ian Roberts
Clinical Co-ordinator CRASH Trials
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Keppel Street
London WC1E 7HT
http://www.crash2.lshtm.ac.uk

For further information please go to:
Society for Accountability of Animal Studies in Biomedical Research & Education

• Additional
• References
• Citations