Missing evidence that animal research benefits humans

Editor—The general inference drawn by Pound et al from six systematic studies, that animal research does not benefit humans is not justified.¹ These studies represent a very small proportion of all animal research. The correct inference from their examples (in four out of six, animal studies agreed with clinical findings) is not that animal research was “valueless” but that it was not done at the right time or was disregarded. Selective referencing (study 5) does not reflect animal research giving the wrong signals; it exemplifies the Nelson syndrome—choosing which signals to see.

Figure 1.

Credit: RAGUET/PHANIE/REX

The real message of the article is not about the value of animal research but about the basis of clinical trials. Before clinical trials are started, all relevant existing research should be critically assessed, locally and externally. In trials of new drugs the external assessment is carried out by the licensing authority; where trials are supported by non-industry funds (Medical Research Council, etc) this is done by the peer reviewers. More clinical research is needed but this deficiency is more an organisational problem² and not a measure of the value of animal research.

Pound et al ask where the evidence is that animal research benefits humans. That evidence is like Christopher Wren's monuments—it is all around us. Many humans are benefiting now from, say, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, selective β agonists, neuromuscular blockers, anaesthetics, or statins. All have been introduced because animal research initially suggested benefit for a human disorder; suggestions that were subsequently fully substantiated in clinical practice.