Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility.

Knowledge Source Identification
Knowledge source name Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility.
Owner/Developer Alternatives to Laboratory Animals
Abbreviated owner ATLA
Country United Kingdom
Languages English
URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18186670
Description 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.
Knowledge Source Category
Category Publication
Sub categories Review / Research article
Knowledge Dissemination and Sharing
Dissemination channel Website, Printed
Targeted audience (specified/objective analysis) Scientists, Industry, Researchers
Users access Restricted access
Knowledge Characterization
3Rs relevance Replacement, Reduction
Purpose Toxicological and safety evaluation, Documentation and information
Technology/Tools Animal testing (in vivo)