In their in-depth investigation into the ethics (and science) of animal research, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted politely that “some critics of animal research and testing tend to attribute any problems with the final product solely to the use of animal testing”. To put it bluntly, anti-vivisectionists claim falsely that that drug side-effects are caused by reassurances of safety from animal testing, whilst ignoring the in vitro and computer tests which are also carried out as part of the pre-clinical tests.
Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP), which masquerades as a scientific organisation, is the worst offender in this dishonesty. Animal rights activist Kathy Archibald, from EMP, spoke at a recent debate on the Oxford Lab (reported by the BBC). In an on-line article, responding to the views of genuine medical research charities, Kathy falsely represents the role of animal testing in almost every way possible. She claims drug side-effects have killed many people despite extensive proof from animal tests that drugs were safe. This is not how animal testing works.
For example, Kathy’s organisation repeatedly claim that the arthritis drug Vioxx which was withdrawn in 2004, appeared safe and even beneficial in animal tests. Here she even contradicts the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which is the sister organisation to EMP in the US - and another animal rights organisation in disguise. In a supposedly ‘scientific’ critique of animal testing for Vioxx, this organisation claims that “animal data have not been consistent… the possibility of a neutral, harmful, or even beneficial effect have all been raised...”.
So Europeans for Medical Progress are trying to argue that drugs like Vioxx are passed safe in animals, whilst simultaneously their partner organisation PCRM is trying to argue that animal tests give inconsistent results. These organisations will make pretty much any claim that they think they can get away with, so long as it serves their purpose of undermining animal research.
The true purpose of animal testing is persistently and deliberately misrepresented by these animal rights groups. For any new medicine such as Vioxx, the role of pre-clinical tests, including animal tests, are to answer the straightforward question: is this potential drug safe enough to go into initial human clinical trials with a reasonable chance that it will not prove to be severely toxic. In the case of Vioxx, the answer was a resounding yes. Vioxx was extensively studied in humans in randomized placebo- and active-controlled clinical trials both before and after it was approved by over 70 regulatory agencies around the world. For example, before submitting VIOXX to the FDA for review in 1998, 58 studies were conducted in almost 10,000 patients. More than 5,000 patients took VIOXX in these studies, many for more than a year. Severe toxicity was not reported - a good success for animal and other pre-clinical tests in protecting those early volunteers.
Kathy Archibald’s last gasp at credibility is to refer to a single decision by the Advertising Standards Authority to rule against a phrase used to describe the benefits of animal research by the Association of Medical Research Charities. Despite vehemently denouncing the ASA when they made five rulings against EMP, as well as appealing against the verdict, all of a sudden Kathy makes a bid to skew ASA rulings to her advantage. But crucially, she omits to link to the ASA ruling. We wonder why! Its findings provide no support whatsoever for the animal rights approach. Even on the one ruling which was upheld, the ASA suggested that the claim should be amended to read “some of the major advances in the last century relied on animal research ...” This is not something that Kathy Archibald would subscribe to at all! In the other two parallel adjudications, (which went against EMP), the ASA agreed that there was no alternative to use of animals at some stages of research, and supported a list of medical advances made possible with animal research, which included kidney transplants, heart bypass, polio vaccine and several others.
Like any other method of research, animal testing can never provide a guarantee that new medicines will be safe. But without animal tests, we would have to go from in vitro and computer tests straight into humans, without the ability to pick up drugs that are severely toxic to living animals. That would be a nightmare scenario.
<Wrap up...>
