They
are now urging a systematic review of all existing animal
research before new experiments are carried out.
The
findings, published in the British Medical Journal, have
boosted animal rights groups.
However,
on the same day that the BMJ paper is published, the Royal
Society has produced a guide which says humanity has benefited
immensely from scientific research involving animals.
The
society, which is the UK's national academy of science,
says virtually every medical achievement in the past century
has been reliant on the use of animals in some way.
In
contrast, the London School of Hygiene scientists question
the point of some animal experiments, citing examples where
research has been badly designed or where it has been carried
out alongside human trials, rendering it unnecessary.
In
reaching their conclusions, the London team carried out
a systematic review of all animal experiments which purported
to have clinical relevance to humans.
They
found many weaknesses and believe animal testing needs to
be reviewed.
POTENTIAL
EXPERIMENT FLAWS Species so different from man that findings
may not be applicable Drug doses may be very different from
those given to humans Small experimental groups generating
weak conclusions Variability in the criteria for selecting
animals The way illness or injury is induced may vary too
much from the human condition
"We
are only asking that the same standards as are applied in
human research are applied to animal research, said Professor
Ian Roberts, one of the authors of the report. "We would
not tolerate haphazard potentially biased reviews of human
research so why should we tolerate this for animal research?
"New
research, whether in animals or humans, should only be carried
out after a proper systematic review of the existing research.
"What's
more, comparing results from systematic reviews of animal
and human research will allow us to assess the contribution
of animal research to improving human health." Testing benefits
The
team stress they are neither in favour of or opposed to
animal experiments.
Professor
Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research
Council (MRC), backed the Royal Society's stance.
He
said: "Animal research has contributed to virtually every
area of medicine.
There is evidence some research is badly designed . "Antibiotics,
vaccines, heart surgery and kidney transplants have all
been discovered and tested through animal studies.
"However,
it's imperative that animal research is properly evaluated
before the results are transferred to medical practice.
"The
sample size of this BMJ study is small, but the authors
have identified some ineffective clinical treatments that
were based on inadequate analysis of results from animal
research."
He
stressed that animal studies have indicated when it is not
appropriate to move to human trials as much as when it is.
The
MRC's policy is that animals must only be used where it
is strictly necessary and we are committed to developing
alternatives to animal research.
He
pointed out that the vast majority of the animal research
work funded by the MRC is not for trials of new drugs but
for studies of disease processes and how the body works.
"Where
we do fund clinical trials of potential new treatments,
we expect animal studies to be completed before human studies
begin," he said.
"Furthermore,
researchers are expected to demonstrate what potential positive
or negative effects have been found in animals."
Animal
rights groups say the BMJ paper is a major breakthrough
in the scientific community's willingness to debate the
issue of animal experiments and whether they work.
National
Anti-vivisection Society chief executive Jan Creamer said:
"Currently, we only see the results of animal experiments
years after they have occurred - when the researcher publishes
the work.
"This
can be between three and 10 years after the event. So the
debate about whether animals should have been used takes
place too late.
"We
want to shift this to the position where there is full public
scrutiny before a licence is granted."
This
news reported by BBC was posted on the website of Animal
News Centre - www.anc.org
