No method of medical research is perfect. Just as studies in animals have limitations, so does research using so-called ‘alternative’ methods, such as cell cultures and computer simulations. Even interpreting the results of studies in humans, like clinical trials, can be fraught with difficulty.
We only need to look at the substantial damage caused to the MMR vaccination rates resulting from the publication of what now seems to have been ill-conceived and poorly conducted clinical studies in humans to see the flaws and limitations of such work.
Yet the tactics of the anti-vivisectionists remain depressingly familiar. They subject animal research alone to intense scrutiny, identify the areas where the results were inconclusive or contradictory (as they sometimes are - of course), and exaggerate the problems beyond reason. Meanwhile, the alternative methods are described as ‘advanced’ or ‘superior’, without any corresponding analysis of their drawbacks and limitations.
This is dishonest. There are many examples of where research in cell cultures, for example, fail to give a good picture as to what would happen in a whole living body, and certainly could not predict outcomes in people. That does not mean cell culture research is invalid or not useful. It just means scientists must be aware of the limitations of all different methods.
When put under pressure, those animal rights groups who are leading the assault on the science of animal research are forced to admit that any method of research can give misleading results. For example, Kathy Archibald of EMP recently stated in an online article that ‘no method - animal, human or test-tube, can predict the reactions of every patient with 100% accuracy’.
But still they persist in their deliberate misinformation. Typically anti-vivisectionists give long lists of animal studies which failed to predict to results in humans, but omit the cases where animal studies did provide useful information relevant to people. Sometimes the differences between humans and animals reveal important insights into the physiology and mechanisms of disease in humans. These areas of research are largely ignored by anti-vivisection groups.
The favored tactic of misinformation from anti-vivisection groups is to take a valid critique of animal research and then exaggerate it so far beyond reality that it appears to fundamentally question the value of animal research. One of the latest examples is the suggestion from pseudo-scientific animal rights groups like Europeans for Medical Progress that because of a lack of systematic analyses or meta-reviews of animal research studies, there is no evidence that animal research works.
This is not even true - there have been numerous systematic reviews of animal research. they usually show a high concordance between animal and human studies, (the anti-vivisectionists invariably conclude that they are flawed). But it also reveals some fundamental misunderstandings. A meta-analysis combines the results of several similar studies to give a better estimate of the response to a treatment. If applied to animal research it would give us a better estimate of the response of say rats to a treatment, but not whether rats respond the same way as humans. So it can not help in assessing the validity for humans of animal research. Furthermore, in basic research to understand disease mechanisms, each separate research project should be different from earlier projects, otherwise it would amount to duplication. In some cases, observations from a just a single animal study can gain insights which lead to significant breakthroughs in human clinical research. Perhaps only a very small number of animals were used. A meta-review may be of limited benefit if there is only one set of data.
An excellent example is given in a new report called ’Medical research: assessing the benefits to society‘.
In the section ‘Corticosteroids and preterm labour’, the report describes how in the late 1960s, Liggins was doing research to understand how pre-term labour might be prevented. After using corticosteroids to induce labour prematurely in ewes, he noticed that some of their immaturely born lambs had inspired air before they had died. This led to the hypothesis that prenatal administration of corticosteroids might reduce complications resulting from pre-term birth in humans. Within three years, his team showed in a large randomised trial that pre-natal administration of corticosteroids produced important reductions in neonatal respiratory distress and death. Many other controlled trials were done during the subsequent 20 years, but most of them were too small individually to obtain statistically reliable evidence. The strong evidence of the benefits of corticosteroids only became clear when the results of all these studies were reviewed systematically and consequently it was not until the 1990s that this highly cost-effective treatment became more widely adopted.
According to the report, this case ‘shows the importance of systematic review and meta-analysis in identifying effective treatments and reducing duplication of research’. However, it was the human clinical trials that required systematic review - not the animal studies! The lack of definitive studies and meta-analyses in humans actually delayed the introduction of a valuable therapy. This is an accusation which anti-vivisectionists frequently make of animal research (usually wrongly), ignoring the fact that such potential pitfalls are inherent in other types of research as well.
The truth is more mundane than the anti-vivisectionists would have us believe. Animal research is simply one of many methodologies. There is no scientific basis to distinguish it from other types of research, such as using yeasts to investigate cell division.
Yes of course we need critical reviews of all types of research to see where the evidence is pointing. But the vehement assertion from animal rights groups that there is ‘no evidence that animal research is of benefit’ does little more than expose their agenda - and their ignorance.
<Wrap up...>