ArticleBMC medical ethics2019
Recent efforts to elucidate the scientific validity of animal-based drug tests by the pharmaceutical industry, pro-testing lobby groups, and animal welfare organisations.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- A large-scale concordance study of toxicity findings across preclinical species and humans for small molecules and biologics.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Impact of the FDA roadmap and perspectives for regulatory use of new approach methodologies in Japanese pharmaceutical companies.NAM journal · 2026Article
- Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Establishment and characterization of NCC-GCTB10-C1: a novel cell line derived from a patient with recurrent giant cell tumor of bone.Human cell · 2024Article
- ImprovingF1000Research · 2024Article
- Multi-Modal Locomotion of Caenorhabditis elegans by Magnetic Reconfiguration of 3D Microtopography.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- Engineering viral genomics and nano-liposomes in microfluidic platforms for patient-specific analysis of SARS-CoV-2 variants.Theranostics · 2022Review
- Organoids and microphysiological systems: Promising models for accelerating AAV gene therapy studies.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- The human hepatocyte TXG-MAPr: gene co-expression network modules to support mechanism-based risk assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- Chemical toxicity prediction based on semi-supervised learning and graph convolutional neural network.Journal of cheminformatics · 2021Article
- Human Embryo Models and Drug Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- An Overview of Biological and Computational Methods for Designing Mechanism-Informed Anti-biofilm Agents.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Tackling Current Biomedical Challenges With Frontier Biofabrication and Organ-On-A-Chip Technologies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Justification for species selection for pharmaceutical toxicity studies.Toxicology research · 2020Article
- Levelling the Translational Gap for Animal to Human Efficacy Data.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Review
- Utilizing Organoid and Air-Liquid Interface Models as a Screening Method in the Development of New Host Defense Peptides.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEven after several decades of human drug development, there remains an absence of published, substantial, comprehensive data to validate the use of animals in preclinical drug testing, and to point to their predictive nature with regard to human safety/toxicity and efficacy. Two recent papers, authored by pharmaceutical industry scientists, added to the few substantive publications that exist. In this brief article, we discuss both these papers, as well as our own series of three papers on the subject, and also various views and criticisms of lobby groups that advocate the animal testing of new drugs. MAIN TEXT: We argue that there still remains no published evidence to support the current regulatory paradigm of animal testing in supporting safe entry to clinical trials. In fact, the data in these recent studies, as well as in our own studies, support the contention that tests on rodents, dogs and monkeys provide next to no evidential weight to the probability of there being a lack of human toxicity, when there is no apparent toxicity in the animals.
conclusionBased on these data, and in particular on this finding, it must be concluded that animal drug tests are therefore not fit for their stated purpose. At the very least, it is now incumbent on-and we very much encourage-the pharmaceutical industry and its regulators to commission, conduct and/or facilitate further independent studies involving the use of substantial proprietary data.
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.