ReviewBMC medical ethics2012
The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling.
Review in BMC medical ethics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Regenerative Endodontic Procedures: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- In Vitro Skin Models as Non-Animal Methods for Dermal Drug Development and Safety Assessment.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Effect of TheraCal PT and Biodentine on inflammatory cell infiltration and hard tissue formation after pulpotomy in inflamed or healthy rat molars.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Review
- Development of Rat Caries-Induced Pulpitis Model for Vital Pulp Therapy.Journal of dental research · 2023Article
- Midbrain organoids-development and applications in Parkinson's disease.Oxford open neuroscience · 2023Review
- Identifying Key Factors for Accelerating the Transition to Animal-Testing-Free Medical Science through Co-Creative, Interdisciplinary Learning between Students and Teachers.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials: Is it Time to Rethink Our Current Approach?JACC. Basic to translational science · 2019Article
- Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Article
- The rat closely mimics oxidative stress and inflammation in humans after exercise but not after exercise combined with vitamin C administration.European journal of applied physiology · 2016Article
- An Insufferable Business: Ethics, Nonhuman Animals and Biomedical Experiments.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2015Article
- Letter to the editor.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2014Article
- Beyond new chemical entities: advancing drug development based on functional versatility of antibodies.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014Article
- Antidotes, antibody-mediated immunity and the future of pharmaceutical product development.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2013Review
- EVALUATION OF ETHICAL IN INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS OF BRAZILIAN SURGICAL JOURNALS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe requirement that animals be used in research and testing in order to protect humans was formalized in the Nuremberg Code and subsequent national and international laws, codes, and declarations. DISCUSSION: We review the history of these requirements and contrast what was known via science about animal models then with what is known now. We further analyze the predictive value of animal models when used as test subjects for human response to drugs and disease. We explore the use of animals for models in toxicity testing as an example of the problem with using animal models. SUMMARY: We conclude that the requirements for animal testing found in the Nuremberg Code were based on scientifically outdated principles, compromised by people with a vested interest in animal experimentation, serve no useful function, increase the cost of drug development, and prevent otherwise safe and efficacious drugs and therapies from being implemented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.