Animal testing not very reliable or

Why Animal Experimentation Doesn't Work. Reason 3: Animals Aren't Little Humans

However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards. Thus their use eliminates much of the guesswork required when attempting to extrapolate physiological data from other species to humans.

What do you think they are? Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date.

However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals. Does animal experimentation inform human health care?

Johns Hopkins Medicine; available at http: Supplier is also important. An internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Yet all of about 90 animal-tested HIV vaccines failed in humans [5]. The Discordance between Human Diseases and Animal Models of Diseases The lack of sufficient congruence between animal models and human diseases is another significant obstacle to translational reliability.

The National Academies Press; The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable—and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain.

Slate June 1; available at http: Op-Ed ] Many drugs that appear safe and effective in animals fail in humans, or cause significant harm, and even death. Of mice and men: There are many non-animal test methods Animal testing not very reliable or can be used in place of animal testing.

This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity.

Animal models of stroke: Imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically faulty or even harmful substances, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risk and wasting scarce research resources.

Archives in Toxicology ; Hastings Center Report ; This is the essential problem with using other species to inform human health. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice.

Although we share most of our genes with other mammals, there are critical differences in how our genes actually function. See note 5, Hartung, Zurlo Animal models in spinal cord injury: Experimental models of traumatic brain injury: Annals of Neurology ; Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases.

These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail. News of alternatives to animal use makes headlines daily — renewing faith in what science can and will do once it sets its priorities. Reviews in the Neurosciences ; Human tissue research for drug discovery.

Applied Animal Behaviour Science ; However, liver toxicity was not detected in human cell assays, and clinical trials proceeded, which confirmed the absence of significant liver toxicity in humans. For an overview of the harms-versus-benefits argument, see LaFollette H. Researchers are genetically engineering animals to be more humanlike, even though our closest genetic relative has been declared no longer needed for biomedical research.

Journal of Neuroscience Research ; Translational potential of preclinical trials of neuroprotection through pharmacotherapy for spinal cord injury. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable?

If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooringthe usefulness of the experiments must be questioned.

Historical pitfalls and a path forward.Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.

Oct 01,  · Experiments using monkeys are not any more predictive of human responses than those using any other animal. This is the essential problem with using other species to inform human health.

No two. Dangerous animal testing Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused aroundheart attacks and strokes anddeaths worldwide. There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing.

Not only are these non-animal tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans. Founded inNEAVS is a Boston-based, national animal advocacy organization dedicated to ending the use of animals in research, testing and science education.

Animal Data Is Not Reliable for Human Health Research (Op-Ed)

Relying on animal research and testing to protect and improve human health is not only unsafe, but also expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable. Problems of extrapolation—applying information from animal research to humans—are inevitable when researchers use animal models to study human diseases.

The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation Download
Animal testing not very reliable or
Rated 4/5 based on 90 review