Missing evidence that animal research benefits humans

Editor—Pound et al take an extremely narrow approach to the question: “Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?” and they misinterpret their own data.¹ Their opening statement, that clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view, is seriously misleading. There is a huge amount of evidence for the value of animal research.

The authors identified 277 reviews of animal experiments but described just six systematic reviews, conducted to discover whether animal research had informed particular clinical studies. Far from providing evidence that animal research doesn't work, five reviews showed that full analysis of the animal results predicted the ineffectiveness of the treatment being tested. But the clinical work was started before proper assessment of the animal studies.

It is imperative that animal research is properly evaluated before the results are transferred to medical practice. The relevant ethics committees and regulatory authorities should have identified that these clinical trials were based on inadequate analysis of animal experiments. The animal studies were not at fault.

Pound et al did not even consider the importance of animal studies for basic medical research. They ignored research on normal life processes and the natural history of disease, not to mention safety testing. All these make essential contributions to the development of new therapies for humans (and animals). Much of this work is required by law.

Some of the authors have called publicly for a “moratorium” on animal research.² This is totally unjustified by their results.