Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

Animals can be used in many ways in science and scientific research. Given that society values sentient animals and that basic research is not goal oriented, the question is raised: "Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?" We explore this in the context of funding issues, outcomes from basic research, and the position of society as a whole on using sentient animals in research that is not goal oriented. We conclude that the use of sentient animals in basic research cannot be justified in light of society's priorities

Are animal models predictive for humans?

It is one of the central aims of the philosophy of science to elucidate the meanings of scientific terms and also to think critically about their application. The focus of this essay is the scientific term predict and whether there is credible evidence that animal models, especially in toxicology and pathophysiology, can be used to predict human outcomes. Whether animals can be used to predict human response to drugs and other chemicals is apparently a contentious issue. However, when one empirically analyzes animal models using scientific tools they fall far short of being able to predict human responses. This is not surprising considering what we have learned from fields such evolutionary and developmental biology, gene regulation and expression, epigenetics, complexity theory, and comparative genomics

The Scientific Problems with Using Non-Human Animals to Predict Human Response to Drugs and Disease

Every year, and in countries around the world, significant time and resources are devoted to the noble cause of developing drugs to treat and cure human disease. With rare exception, drug interventions cannot reach commercialization without safety and efficacy having first been demonstrated in animal models. The intention of regulations, which require the use of animal models in such contexts, is to ensure that only safe and effective drugs end up being used by patients. Similarly, it is standard practice for researchers to employ animal models in their attempts to understand the way diseases present and progress in humans. Unfortunately, there exist serious theoretical and empirical concerns regarding the standard practice of using non-human animals to model human response to perturbations, such as drugs and disease. These concerns are important because conducting disease research and drug development in a manner that is not supported by science will have suboptimal implications for the humans who rely on that research, which encompass the entire population. Based on complexity science, modern evolutionary biology, and empirical evidence, we demonstrate that animal models have failed as predictors of human response. That is, animal models do not and cannot have acceptably high predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. By this we mean that animal modeling, as a methodology, is for all practical purposes not predictive of human response to drugs and disease; and hence it should be abandoned in favor of human-based research and testing, such as personalized medicine, a new field that takes into account the unique genetic make-up of each individual patient

A Review of the Institute of Medicine’s Analysis of using Chimpanzees in Biomedical Research

We argue that the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity, are methodologically and ethically confused. We argue that a proper understanding of evolution and complexity theory in terms of the science and ethics of using chimpanzees in biomedical research would have had led the committee to recommend not merely limiting but eliminating the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. Specifically, we argue that a proper understanding of the difference between the gross level of examination of species and examinations on finer levels can shed light on important methodological and ethical inconsistencies leading to ignorance of potentially unethical practices and policies regarding the use of animals in scientific research

How to Evaluate the Science of Non-human Animal Use in Biomedical Research and Testing: A Proposed Format for Debate

Over time, the interpretation of science has occasionally been corrupted by vested interest groups, be they financially motivated or ego driven. Scientific consensus and widespread public beliefs usually catch up with the evidence, but this can take a very long time and often costs lives. The use of non-human animals in biomedical research and testing is a scientific endeavor and, as such, can and should be evaluated in light of the best science currently available. But facts that have been accepted in all areas of science are routinely ignored or called into question by well-funded, vested interest groups, compromising the scientific integrity of biomedical research. History is replete with examples of practices deemed scientifically viable in one era, but later abandoned as more facts about the material universe were discovered. There are also many instances of practices being rejected by the scientific establishment, in spite of the fact that they were valid based on scientific criteria. In this chapter, we discuss why science is important in the context of animal modeling, how scientific positions are currently evaluated through the peer-review process, and how an evaluation of the science of animal modeling should be conducted now. We reach the conclusion that, in order to formally evaluate the scientific viability of animal modeling, a debate is urgently needed with experts in the relevant fields of science reviewing pro and con arguments written in position papers

Zoobiquity: What Animals Can Teach Us About Health and the Science of Healing. By Barbara Natterson-Horowitz and Kathryn Bowers. Knopf Doubleday Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Hardback, 320 pp; $16.23; ISBN-10: 0307593487

Zoobiquity: What Animals Can Teach Us About Health and the Science of Healing (Knopf 2012) is an easy to read and entertaining book co-written by Barbara Natterson-Horowitz, MD and Kathryn Bowers. Natterson-Horowitz is a practicing cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) David Geffen School of Medicine, who also has training in psychiatry. Kathryn Bowers is a professional writer who teaches writing at UCLA. The book addresses traits shared by nonhuman animals (hereafter referred to simply as animals) and humans that have medical relevance. The authors are to be commended for discussing matters that should be obvious in the 21st century, but sadly still are not universally accepted. Humans share our lineage with animals and this has implications for the origin of traits. Clearly, animals have emotions, preferences, and suffer from diseases that are similar on some levels to the ones humans suffer from. The Cartesian view of animals has been debunked and the authors give many examples supporting a more scientifically advanced view of animals

The Scientific Problems with Using Non-Human Animals to Predict Human Response to Drugs and Disease

Every year, and in countries around the world, significant time and resources are devoted to the noble cause of developing drugs to treat and cure human disease. With rare exception, drug interventions cannot reach commercialization without safety and efficacy having first been demonstrated in animal models. The intention of regulations, which require the use of animal models in such contexts, is to ensure that only safe and effective drugs end up being used by patients. Similarly, it is standard practice for researchers to employ animal models in their attempts to understand the way diseases present and progress in humans. Unfortunately, there exist serious theoretical and empirical concerns regarding the standard practice of using non-human animals to model human response to perturbations, such as drugs and disease. These concerns are important because conducting disease research and drug development in a manner that is not supported by science will have suboptimal implications for the humans who rely on that research, which encompass the entire population. Based on complexity science, modern evolutionary biology, and empirical evidence, we demonstrate that animal models have failed as predictors of human response. That is, animal models do not and cannot have acceptably high predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. By this we mean that animal modeling, as a methodology, is for all practical purposes not predictive of human response to drugs and disease; and hence it should be abandoned in favor of human-based research and testing, such as personalized medicine, a new field that takes into account the unique genetic make-up of each individual patient