Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility.
Owner/Developer: Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA)
The assumption that animal models are reasonably predictive of human outcomes provides the basis for their widespread use in toxicity testing and in biomedical research aimed at developing cures for human diseases. To investigate the validity of this assumption, the comprehensive Scopus biomedical bibliographic databases were searched for published systematic reviews of the human clinical or toxicological utility of animal experiments. In 20 reviews in which clinical utility was examined, the authors concluded that animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of clinical interventions, or were substantially consistent with clinical outcomes, in only two cases, one of which was contentious. [...] The poor human clinical and toxicological utility of most animal models for which data exists, in conjunction with their generally substantial animal welfare and economic costs, justify a ban on animal models lacking scientific data clearly establishing their human predictivity or utility.
|Channel:||Website - Printed|
|Audience:||Scientists - Industry - Researchers|
|User access:||Restricted access|
|Relevance:||Replacement - Reduction|
|Purpose:||Toxicological and safety evaluation - Documentation and information|
|Technology/Tools:||Animal testing (in vivo)|
Did you find what you were looking for?Yes, I found it! No, I did not!
Thanks for your feedback! Please note that we cannot respond unless you supply your email address.
What are you looking for?
Please give us your feedback so we can improve the information on the page. Thank you in advance for your help. Please add your email address if you would like a reply.Please contact us by email if you have any questions.