Animal experiments misleading, admit scientists.

August 25, 2005

"Zeus" <info

Doctors fear animal experiments endanger patients

Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:58:27 +0100

Doctors fear animal experiments endanger patients

Majority of GPs now question the scientific worth of animal tests,

with 82% worried for their patients' safety

Patient advocacy group Europeans for Medical Progress commissioned a

survey of 500 General Practitioners, conducted by TNS Healthcare

(www.tns-global.com) between 5th - 17th August 2004. The company,

which has many large pharmaceutical clients, selected the GPs so as to

ensure a thorough demographic and geographical UK spread. The results

show a staggering level of distrust in results obtained from animal

experiments:

* 82% were concerned that animal data can be misleading when

applied to humans

* only 21% would have more confidence in animal testsfor new drugs

than in a battery of human-based safety tests

* 83% would support an independent scientific evaluation of the

clinical relevance of animal experimentation

This confirms what Europeans for Medical Progress suspected - that a

silent majority of doctors today are aware that animal tests are not

the safety net the public and the medical profession are frequently

assured they are by the government and the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, there is evidence that testing new drugs and treatments for

human disease on animals endangers human health and safety - for

example, hormone replacement therapy increases women's risk of heart

disease and stroke, even though studies in monkeys predicted the

opposite. Aidsvax failed to protect 8,000 volunteers from HIV, even

though it protected chimpanzees. Dozens of treatments for stroke have

tested safe and effective in animals in recent years but patients have

been injured or killed by all of them.

The clinical relevance of animal research requires urgent evaluation -

a fact now accepted amongst the medical profession but not by the

government, which "has not commissioned or evaluated any formal

research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do

so", according to Home Office Minister Caroline Flint (April 2004). A

paper published in the BMJ on 28th February 2004 asked "Where is the

evidence that animal research benefits humans?" If such evidence

cannot be found, the practice should cease. Patients will benefit

because they will no longer be damaged by misleading data, and also

because the resources currently pouring into animal research will be

freed for clinical research.

Science Director of Europeans for Medical Progress, Dr. Jarrod Bailey,

commented,

"An independent, transparent and public evaluation of the scientific

value of animal experiments is clearly overdue. My scientific

colleagues have long been frustrated by the Establishment's refusal to

debate this issue openly. We believe they must now do so. Today, we

are studying disease on the molecular level, where differences between

species make mistakes inevitable. Today, medicine is much more

evidence-based and it is time to weigh the real harm from animal

experiments against the alleged benefits."

Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary Norman Baker MP said,

"This is an important survey result which rightly questions the extent

to which it is safe to rely on extrapolated results from animal tests.

There needs to be a debate about this matter, rather than the sterile

one which the media has created, artificially juxtaposing "animal

extremists" with "men in white coats". While I utterly condemn the

unlawful and intimidatory actions of a few extremists, it is wrong to

suggest, as the media does all too often, that the scientific and

medical community is all in favour of experiments on animals, and that

they all feel safe with extrapolating the results. They aren't, and

they don't."

Notes

The questions above were:

1) Does it concern you that animal data can be misleading when applied

to humans? 82% yes, 8% no, 10% don't know

2) Today there are many sophisticated methods of testing drug safety,

including pharmacogenetic studies using DNA chips, virtual human

metabolic prediction programmes and micro-dosing studies where

volunteers are monitored with PET and other scanners. Would you have

more confidence in a battery of these human-based tests than in data

from animal tests? 51% yes, 21% no, 28% don't know

3) Would you support an independent scientific evaluation of the

clinical relevance of animal experimentation? 83% yes, 8% no, 10%

don't know

Europeans for Medical Progress is a mainstream science-based

non-profit research and educational institute dedicated to improving

human health by modernising biomedical research. We oppose animal

experimentation, based on overwhelming scientific evidence that

findings from animal models cannot be reliably extrapolated to humans.

Far from helping us, animal experiments directly harm people, divert

funds from genuinely useful research methods and are a major obstacle

to medical progress today. See www.curedisease.net

Three books on the human costs of animal experiments: Sacred Cows and

Golden Geese (Continuum, 2000); Specious Science (Continuum, 2002)

and What Will We Do If We Don't Experiment on Animals? Medical

Research for the 21st Century (Trafford, 2004) - are available from

info

Contacts: Kathy Archibald, Director of EMP: Kathy /

0779 228 9066

Shelly Willetts, Communications Director: shelly

Sign In

Animal experiments misleading, admit scientists.

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads