Doctors fear animal experiments
endanger patients
Majority of GPs now
question the scientific worth of animal tests,
with 82%
worried for their patients' safety
Patient advocacy group Europeans for
Medical Progress commissioned a survey
of 500 General Practitioners, conducted by
TNS Healthcare (www.tns-global.com) between
5th - 17th August 2004. The company, which
has many large pharmaceutical clients, selected
the GPs so as to ensure a thorough demographic
and geographical UK spread. The results show
a staggering level of distrust in results obtained
from animal experiments:
- 82% were concerned that animal data can be
misleading when applied to humans
- only 21% would have more confidence
in animal testsfor new drugs than in
a battery of human-based safety tests
- 83% would support an independent scientific
evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal
experimentation
This confirms what Europeans for Medical
Progress suspected - that a silent majority
of doctors today are aware that animal tests
are not the safety net the public and the
medical profession are frequently assured
they are by the government and the pharmaceutical
industry.
In fact, there is evidence that testing
new drugs and treatments for human disease on
animals endangers human health and safety - for
example, hormone replacement therapy increases women's
risk of heart disease and stroke, even though
studies in monkeys predicted the opposite. Aidsvax
failed to protect 8,000 volunteers from HIV,
even though it protected chimpanzees. Dozens
of treatments for stroke have tested safe
and effective in animals in recent years but patients
have been injured or killed by all of them.
The clinical relevance of animal research requires
urgent evaluation - a fact now accepted
amongst the medical profession but not by the
government, which "has not commissioned
or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy
of animal experiments and has no plans to do
so", according to Home Office Minister Caroline
Flint (April 2004). A paper published in
the BMJ on 28th February 2004 asked “Where
is the evidence that animal research benefits
humans?” If such evidence cannot
be found, the practice should cease. Patients
will benefit because they will no longer
be damaged by misleading data, and also
because the resources currently pouring into
animal research will be freed for clinical
research.
Science Director of Europeans for Medical
Progress, Dr. Jarrod Bailey, commented,
"An independent, transparent and public
evaluation of the scientific value of animal
experiments is clearly overdue. My scientific
colleagues have long been frustrated
by the Establishment's refusal to debate this
issue openly. We believe they must now do so. Today,
we are studying disease on the molecular level,
where differences between species make mistakes
inevitable. Today, medicine is much more
evidence-based and it is time to weigh the
real harm from animal experiments against
the alleged benefits."
Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary Norman
Baker MP said,
"This is an important survey result which
rightly questions the extent to which it is safe
to rely on extrapolated results from animal tests.
There needs to be a debate about this matter,
rather than the sterile one which the media has
created, artificially juxtaposing "animal
extremists" with "men in white coats".
While I utterly condemn the unlawful and intimidatory
actions of a few extremists, it is wrong to suggest,
as the media does all too often, that the scientific
and medical community is all in favour of experiments
on animals, and that they all feel safe with
extrapolating the results. They aren't, and they
don't."
Notes
The questions above were:
1) Does it concern you that animal data can
be misleading when applied to humans? 82%
yes, 8% no, 10% don't know
2) Today there are many sophisticated methods
of testing drug safety, including pharmacogenetic
studies using DNA chips, virtual human metabolic
prediction programmes and micro-dosing studies
where volunteers are monitored with PET and other
scanners. Would you have more confidence in a
battery of these human-based tests than in data
from animal tests? 51% yes, 21% no, 28%
don't know
3) Would you support an independent scientific
evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal
experimentation? 83% yes, 8% no, 10%
don't know
Europeans for Medical Progress is
a mainstream science-based non-profit research
and educational institute dedicated to improving
human health by modernising biomedical research.
We oppose animal experimentation, based on overwhelming
scientific evidence that findings from animal
models cannot be reliably extrapolated to humans.
Far from helping us, animal experiments directly
harm people, divert funds from genuinely useful
research methods and are a major obstacle to
medical progress today. See www.safermedicines.org
Three books on the human costs of animal experiments:
Sacred Cows and Golden Geese (Continuum, 2000); Specious
Science (Continuum, 2002) and What Will We Do
If We Don't Experiment on Animals? Medical Research
for the 21st Century (Trafford, 2004) - are available
from info@safermedicines.org
Contacts: Kathy Archibald,
Director of EMP: Kathy@safermedicines.org /
0779 228 9066
Shelly
Willetts, Communications Director: shelly@safermedicines.org
|
