Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Human Clinical and Toxicological Utility

The assumption that animal models are reasonably predictive of human outcomes provides the basis for their widespread use in toxicity testing and in biomedical research aimed at developing cures for human diseases. To investigate the validity of this assumption, the comprehensive Scopus biomedical bibliographic databases were searched for published systematic reviews of the human clinical or toxicological utility of animal experiments. In 20 reviews in which clinical utility was examined, the authors concluded that animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of clinical interventions, or were substantially consistent with clinical outcomes, in only two cases, one of which was contentious. These included reviews of the clinical utility of experiments expected by ethics committees to lead to medical advances, of highly-cited experiments published in major journals, and of chimpanzee experiments — those involving the species considered most likely to be predictive of human outcomes. Seven additional reviews failed to clearly demonstrate utility in predicting human toxicological outcomes, such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. Consequently, animal data may not generally be assumed to be substantially useful for these purposes. Possible causes include interspecies differences, the distortion of outcomes arising from experimental environments and protocols, and the poor methodological quality of many animal experiments, which was evident in at least 11 reviews. No reviews existed in which the majority of animal experiments were of good methodological quality. Whilst the effects of some of these problems might be minimised with concerted effort (given their widespread prevalence), the limitations resulting from interspecies differences are likely to be technically and theoretically impossible to overcome. Non-animal models are generally required to pass formal scientific validation prior to their regulatory acceptance. In contrast, animal models are simply assumed to be predictive of human outcomes. These results demonstrate the invalidity of such assumptions. The consistent application of formal validation studies to all test models is clearly warranted, regardless of their animal, non-animal, historical, contemporary or possible future status. Likely benefits would include, the greater selection of models truly predictive of human outcomes, increased safety of people exposed to chemicals that have passed toxicity tests, increased efficiency during the development of human pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic interventions, and decreased wastage of animal, personnel and financial resources. The poor human clinical and toxicological utility of most animal models for which data exists, in conjunction with their generally substantial animal welfare and economic costs, justify a ban on animal models lacking scientific data clearly establishing their human predictivity or utility

An Assessment of the Use of Chimpanzees in Hepatitis C Research Past, Present and Future: 2. Alternative Replacement Methods

The use of chimpanzees in hepatitis C virus (HCV) research was examined in the report associated with this paper (1: Validity of the Chimpanzee Model), in which it was concluded that claims of past necessity of chimpanzee use were exaggerated, and that claims of current and future indispensability were unjustifiable. Furthermore, given the serious scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee experimentation, it was proposed that it must now be considered redundant — particularly in light of the demonstrable contribution of alternative methods to past and current scientific progress, and the future promise that these methods hold. This paper builds on this evidence, by examining the development of alternative approaches to the investigation of HCV, and by reviewing examples of how these methods have contributed, and are continuing to contribute substantially, to progress in this field. It augments the argument against chimpanzee use by demonstrating the comprehensive nature of these methods and the valuable data they deliver. The entire life-cycle of HCV can now be investigated in a human (and much more relevant) context, without recourse to chimpanzee use. This also includes the testing of new therapies and vaccines. Consequently, there is no sound argument against the changes in public policy that propose a move away from chimpanzee use in US laboratories

An Assessment of the Use of Chimpanzees in Hepatitis C Research Past, Present and Future: 1. Validity of the Chimpanzee Model

The USA is the only significant user of chimpanzees in biomedical research in the world, since many countries have banned or limited the practice due to substantial ethical, economic and scientific concerns. Advocates of chimpanzee use cite hepatitis C research as a major reason for its necessity and continuation, in spite of supporting evidence that is scant and often anecdotal. This paper examines the scientific and ethical issues surrounding chimpanzee hepatitis C research, and concludes that claims of the necessity of chimpanzees in historical and future hepatitis C research are exaggerated and unjustifiable, respectively. The chimpanzee model has several major scientific, ethical, economic and practical caveats. It has made a relatively negligible contribution to knowledge of, and tangible progress against, the hepatitis C virus compared to non-chimpanzee research, and must be considered scientifically redundant, given the array of alternative methods of inquiry now available. The continuation of chimpanzee use in hepatitis C research adversely affects scientific progress, as well as chimpanzees and humans in need of treatment. Unfounded claims of its necessity should not discourage changes in public policy regarding the use of chimpanzees in US laboratories

Cross sections and tensor analyzing powers Ayy of the reaction H-1(d, pp)n in 'symmetric constant relative energy' geometries at Ed=19-MeV

We measured the cross sections and tensor analyzing powers of the H-1(d,pp)n breakup reaction at E-d=19 MeV in four symmetric constant relative energy (SCRE) configurations. The data are compared with theoretical predictions from four different approaches: the first based on high-precision (semi)phenomenological potentials alone or, the second, combined with model three-nucleon forces, and the third based on chiral forces up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in the chiral expansion. In these cases the Coulomb interaction is not included. In addition, a fourth approach consists in a comparison with predictions based on CD Bonn including the Delta excitation and the Coulomb force. In all cases the measured cross sections are significantly below the theoretical values, whereas the magnitudes of the tensor analyzing powers agree within the error bars in three of the four cases. The apparent discrepancies in the breakup cross sections are similar to the known differences for the space-star breakup. This adds to the data base of unsolved low-energy discrepancies (puzzles)