PRESS
RELEASE - WEDNESDAY 24th AUGUST 2005
ANIMAL TESTING - MPs,
GPs and scientists demand evaluation
The RDS'
claims about the medical value of
animal experimentation are unsubstantiated
by scientific evidence. Europeans
for Medical Progress has amassed overwhelming
evidence, from the scientific literature, of
harm to humans caused by reliance on misleading
animal tests.
Likewise, claims that the scientific community overwhelmingly
supports animal experimentation do not stand
up to scrutiny. An independent survey of
500 GPs in August 2004 found that 82% of doctors
are "concerned that animal data can be misleading
when applied to humans" and
83% would "support an independent scientific
evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal
experimentation". The (2002) Toxicology
Working Group of the House of Lords Select
Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures recommended
that “the reliability and relevance of
all existing animal tests should be reviewed
as a matter of urgency."
Animal tests were made a legal requirement following
the Thalidomide tragedy forty years ago, in the
hope of preventing another such disaster. But
have they lived up to their promise? Recently
withdrawn arthritis drug Vioxx was safe and
even beneficial to animal's hearts but
caused hundreds of thousands of heart
attacks and strokes in people - the biggest drug
disaster in history. Merck, the manufacturer
of Vioxx, favoured animal data over human clinical
trial data. Shockingly, adverse reactions to
prescription medicines (all tested for safety
on animals) are now the fourth leading cause
of death in the western world. New human-based
safety tests before and during clinical trials
(such as microdosing) could prevent many of these
deaths.
Many studies comparing drug side-effects in
humans and animals have found animal tests
to be less predictive than tossing a coin. Over
700 drugs to treat stroke have been found safe
and effective in animal studies but none
has been found safe and effective for patients.
Hormone replacement therapy, prescribed to many
millions of women because it lowered monkeys'
risk of heart disease and stroke, increases women's
risks significantly. Animal testing for teratogenicity
(potential to cause birth defects) has been shown
by a new study to be ineffective.
This Government came to power promising a Royal
Commission on animal experimentation. It is high
time the real harms from animal testing
were weighed against the alleged benefits. It
is high time advocates of animal testing
were held to account. The RDS claim that "the
validity, usefulness and relevance of animal
research need to be demonstrated in every case" - clearly,
they should support an evaluation of animal
testing, yet they do not.
Europeans for Medical Progress is now calling
for an independent and transparent scientific
evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate
humans in drug safety testing and medical research. 90
MPs already support this call, which is made
in Early Day Motion 92, whose
wording is below.
State-of-the-art human-based tests could have
prevented the Vioxx tragedy. The public deserves
to be protected from another 'Vioxx' in future.
Clearly, an assessment needs to be made of the
relative performance of the various methods of
safety testing available. Substantial evidence
exists that animal tests are inadequate for the
task but - incredibly - this has never been systematically
investigated. The only responsible course of
action is to evaluate animal testing scientifically,
in an independent and transparent manner.
Says Science Director of Europeans for Medical
Progress, Dr Jarrod Bailey, "The
urgency of this evaluation cannot be overstated:
people's lives are at stake. The Government must
act now to facilitate the conduct of this evaluation
and undertake to act upon the results with due
speed when the implications have become apparent."
Says Tony Benn, "There
is every reason why the public should be sceptical
about claims that animal testing benefits human
health. It is astonishing that animal
testing has never been scientifically evaluated
and the process is long overdue."
Notes to Editor
EDM 92:"That
this House, in common with Europeans for Medical
Progress, expresses its concerns
regarding the safeguarding of public health
through data obtained from laboratory
animals, particularly in light of large numbers
of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions
that were not predicted by animal studies;
is surprised that the Government has not commissioned
or evaluated any formal research on the
efficacy of animal experiments, and has
no plans to do so; and, in common with 83 per
cent of general practitioners in a recent
survey, calls upon the Government to facilitate an
independent and transparent scientific evaluation
of the use of animals as surrogate humans
in drug safety testing and medical research."
Supporting an evaluation are: The
Rt Hon Tony Benn, Dr Caroline Lucas MEP, Mike
Hancock MBE, MP, Michael
Meacher MP, Ann Widdecombe MP, Norman Baker
MP
Europeans for Medical Progress is dedicated
to improving patient safety - see www.safermedicines.org
|
