Writing in the BMJ, Yale University epidemiologist Michael Bracken and UK medical sociologist Pandora Pound argued that too many animal trials investigating medical treatments are poorly designed,
and called for better use of systematic reviews to maximize their
benefit. Lenny Verkooijen, a clinical epidemiologist at University
Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, tweeted that there is
“insufficient systematic evidence for the clinical benefits of animal
research”. But in a letter to the journal,
pharmacologist Fernando Martins do Vale at the University of Lisbon
noted that animal research has benefited medicine and has led to
“seminal discoveries in the field of physiology, biochemistry,
pharmacology and genetics”.
Bracken and Pound cite several examples of ultimately futile animal research. They write that decades of stroke studies using animal models have yet to yield a single treatment that is useful for humans. Likewise, they note, not one of the more than 100 drugs that have been tested in a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has proved to be beneficial after further experiments. Part of the problem, they argue, is basic biology: the gulf between lab animals and humans is often too wide for meaningful extrapolation. But they also see basic shortcomings in how animal studies are carried out. They cite an analysis of 271 animal studies conducted between 1999 and 2005, which found that only 12% included randomization for treatments and controls. Systematic reviews — which are relatively uncommon in animal research — have pointed to widespread bias in reporting and publishing of results, they write.
In an e-mail, Bracken clarifies that he isn't calling for any sort of ban or moratorium on animal research. “We are saying that badly designed ... animal research, which is now widely documented to be commonplace, is unethical.” Not only do such trials fail to benefit humans, he says, but they can also actively harm people who are enrolled in clinical trials of drugs or other therapies.
- More Here
Bracken and Pound cite several examples of ultimately futile animal research. They write that decades of stroke studies using animal models have yet to yield a single treatment that is useful for humans. Likewise, they note, not one of the more than 100 drugs that have been tested in a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has proved to be beneficial after further experiments. Part of the problem, they argue, is basic biology: the gulf between lab animals and humans is often too wide for meaningful extrapolation. But they also see basic shortcomings in how animal studies are carried out. They cite an analysis of 271 animal studies conducted between 1999 and 2005, which found that only 12% included randomization for treatments and controls. Systematic reviews — which are relatively uncommon in animal research — have pointed to widespread bias in reporting and publishing of results, they write.
In an e-mail, Bracken clarifies that he isn't calling for any sort of ban or moratorium on animal research. “We are saying that badly designed ... animal research, which is now widely documented to be commonplace, is unethical.” Not only do such trials fail to benefit humans, he says, but they can also actively harm people who are enrolled in clinical trials of drugs or other therapies.
- More Here
No comments:
Post a Comment