BBC Scientists doubt animal research, study published by British Medical Journal

[Guest guest]

BBC DAILY E-MAIL: UK EDITION

Friday, 27 February, 2004, 9:00 GMT 01:00 -08:00:US/Pacific

 

 

* Scientists doubt animal research *

Some animal experiments are irrelevant to

clinical medicine and unlikely to help treat

disease, scientists suggest.

Full story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/health/3489952.stm

 

Scientists doubt animal research

Many animal experiments may be of little benefit

to treating human disease, according to experts.

 

Animal research needs more scrutiny, the authors say

 

 

Much of the research is poorly conducted and not

thoroughly evaluated, say scientists at the

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

 

They are now urging a systematic review of all

existing animal research before new experiments

are carried out.

 

The findings, published in the British Medical

Journal, have boosted animal rights groups.

 

However, on the same day that the BMJ paper is

published, the Royal Society has produced a guide

which says humanity has benefited immensely from

scientific research involving animals.

 

The society, which is the UK's national academy

of science, says virtually every medical

achievement in the past century has been reliant

on the use of animals in some way.

 

In contrast, the London School of Hygiene

scientists question the point of some animal

experiments, citing examples where research has

been badly designed or where it has been carried

out alongside human trials, rendering it

unnecessary.

 

In reaching their conclusions, the London team

carried out a systematic review of all animal

experiments which purported to have clinical

relevance to humans.

 

They found many weaknesses and believe animal testing needs to be reviewed.

 

" We are only asking that the same standards as

are applied in human research are applied to

animal research, said Professor Ian Roberts, one

of the authors of the report.

 

" We would not tolerate haphazard potentially

biased reviews of human research so why should we

tolerate this for animal research?

 

" New research, whether in animals or humans,

should only be carried out after a proper

systematic review of the existing research.

 

" What's more, comparing results from systematic

reviews of animal and human research will allow

us to assess the contribution of animal research

to improving human health. "

 

Testing benefits

 

The team stress they are neither in favour of or opposed to animal experiments.

 

Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the

Medical Research Council (MRC), backed the Royal

Society's stance.

 

He said: " Animal research has contributed to virtually every area of medicine.

 

" Antibiotics, vaccines, heart surgery and kidney

transplants have all been discovered and tested

through animal studies.

 

" However, it's imperative that animal research is

properly evaluated before the results are

transferred to medical practice.

 

" The sample size of this BMJ study is small, but

the authors have identified some ineffective

clinical treatments that were based on inadequate

analysis of results from animal research. "

 

He stressed that animal studies have indicated

when it is not appropriate to move to human

trials as much as when it is.

 

The MRC's policy is that animals must only be

used where it is strictly necessary and we are

committed to developing alternatives to animal

research.

 

He pointed out that the vast majority of the

animal research work funded by the MRC is not for

trials of new drugs but for studies of disease

processes and how the body works.

 

 

The debate about whether animals should have been used takes place too late

Jan Creamer, National Anti-vivisection Society

" Where we do fund clinical trials of potential

new treatments, we expect animal studies to be

completed before human studies begin, " he said.

 

" Furthermore, researchers are expected to

demonstrate what potential positive or negative

effects have been found in animals. "

 

Animal rights groups say the BMJ paper is a major

breakthrough in the scientific community's

willingness to debate the issue of animal

experiments and whether they work.

 

National Anti-vivisection Society chief executive

Jan Creamer said: " Currently, we only see the

results of animal experiments years after they

have occurred - when the researcher publishes the

work.

 

" This can be between three and 10 years after the

event. So the debate about whether animals should

have been used takes place too late.

 

" We want to shift this to the position where

there is full public scrutiny before a licence is

granted. "

 

-------------POTENTIAL EXPERIMENT FLAWS

Species so different from man that findings may not be applicable

Drug doses may be very different from those given to humans

Small experimental groups generating weak conclusions

Variability in the criteria for selecting animals

The way illness or injury is induced may vary too much from the human condition

---------------------

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/3489952.stm

 

Published: 2004/02/27 02:31:44 GMT

 

© BBC MMIV

 

 

 

--

--

Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE

Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ with

French and Spanish language subsections.

 

 

Something to think about: We believe

that the Golden Rule applies to animals, too.

We don't accept the prevailing notion that

" people come first' " or that " people are more

important than animals. " Animals feel pain and

suffer just as we do, and it is almost always

humans making animals suffer and not the other

way around. Yet in spite of how cruelly

people behave towards animals -- not to mention

human cruelty to other humans -- we are supposed

to believe that humans are superior to other

animals. If people want to fancy themselves as

being of greater moral worth than the other

creatures on this earth, we should begin

behaving better than they do, and not worse.

Let's start treating everyone as we would like to

be treated ourselves.