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)|
Fant du det du lette etter?Ja, jeg fant det! Nei, jeg fant det ikke!
Takk for din tilbakemelding! Vær oppmerksom på at vi ikke kan kontakte deg hvis ikke du oppgir din epostadresse.
Hva lette du etter?
Gi oss gjerne en tilbakemelding slik at vi kan forbedre informasjonen på siden. På forhånd takk for hjelpen! Vennligst skriv inn din epostadresse hvis du vil ha et svar.Kontakt oss gjerne på e-post hvis du har spørsmål.