{"id":3813,"date":"2015-06-12T07:43:55","date_gmt":"2015-06-12T07:43:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=3813"},"modified":"2016-08-14T00:17:46","modified_gmt":"2016-08-14T00:17:46","slug":"animal-research-provides-a-flawed-model-so-why-not-stop","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/animal-research-provides-a-flawed-model-so-why-not-stop\/","title":{"rendered":"Animal research provides a flawed model, so why not stop?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Monika Merkes<\/a>, La Trobe University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Much of the research involving the development of new drugs still uses animals. Apart from moral questions about inflicting pain and death on animals for the purpose of medical research, there are an increasing number of questions about the suitability of using laboratory animals for research into human diseases and drug testing.<\/p>\n

There are many examples clearly showing that animal models are not predictive of human health. Recently, a group of scientists wrote an open letter in The Lancet<\/a> (addressed to the UK prime minister and health secretary) pointing out that more than 90% of new drugs fail in clinical trials.<\/p>\n

The authors of the letter say part of the reason for this is the reliance on animal testing to predict drug behaviour in people. They claim that animal tests do this with the same probability as the toss of a coin. And they suggest that animal research be replaced with promising new technologies that increase clinical predictability as well as improving efficiency and cost.<\/p>\n

Other researchers have voiced similar concerns. An expert scientific group on phase one (screening for safety) clinical trials in the United Kingdom, for instance, concluded<\/a> that pre-clinical animal studies may not reproduce the intended pharmacological effect, may give misleading results and, most significantly, may not reflect toxicity in humans.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Penicillin may not have seen the light of day of it had been tested in guinea pigs because it\u2019s fatal to them.<\/span>
\nLinda Bartlett<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

While humans and other animals have biological and physiological similarities, differences at the molecular and cellular levels can result in different responses to drugs.<\/p>\n

Animal testing gone wrong<\/h2>\n

The thalidomide tragedy of the late 1950s and early 1960s is a well-known example for the inappropriateness of animal research. Thalidomide<\/a> had been tested on several animal species and found to be safe, even in large doses. Yet thousands of children worldwide were born with missing or shortened limbs after their mothers took the drug for morning sickness.<\/p>\n

The website of Humane Research Australia<\/a> lists over 60 drugs, including thalidomide, that have been \u201csuccessfully\u201d tested on animals, but are toxic to humans. The site notes that the list is not exhaustive.<\/p>\n

In contrast, penicillin<\/a> may not have seen the light of day if it had been tested on guinea pigs or rats \u2013 it kills guinea pigs and produces birth defects in rats. In fact, this antibiotic stayed on the shelf<\/a> for over a decade because it was not effective in the rabbits on which it had been tested.<\/p>\n

There are many other examples<\/a> showing animal testing to have very poor predictive value for human diseases and toxicity. But animals are still used in laboratories all over the world to test the safety, toxicity and effectiveness of drugs. In fact, (and rather paradoxically) animal testing was made mandatory by drug regulators after the thalidomide tragedy. During the more than four decades since, it has become clear that animal tests fail to accurately predict human responses. And now, new testing methods are available.<\/p>\n

In their book \u201cSacred cows and golden geese\u201d<\/a> Ray Greek and Jean Swingle Greek write that they could not find instances of advances that could be credited to the animal model despite searches of medical literature. Most drug advances are due to clinical observations by doctors and nurses on their human patients. But many clinical discoveries, discoveries by serendipity or other non-animal based discoveries were later \u201cvalidated\u201d in animals.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Most drug advances are due to clinical observations are later \u2018validated\u2019 in animals.<\/span>
\nArmin K\u00fcbelbeck<\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Emerging alternatives<\/h2>\n

Humane Research Australia provides a fact sheet<\/a> with a range of alternatives to animal-based research. They include:<\/p>\n