I almost – but only almost – feel sorry for SPEAK. Not only did they have the props pulled from under one of their favourite quotes yesterday, they don’t have the intelligence to realise why it was dishonest, leading to another classic display of throwing their toys out of the pram.
Sir Michael’s letter to the ASA, dated 13th March 2006, made these crucial points:
• The comment was twisted from a genuine scientific point that was made at a Chatham House debate (which, by the nature of these debates, makes it an unreliable source… see below for an explanation of why).
• This comment was taken entirely out of context (it referred to long-term carcinogenicity studies of known genotoxins being futile… because they were already known to be toxic!), meaning SPEAK breached the British Codes of Advertising Practice and deceived the public.
• By attributing their propaganda to a source such as the Chairman of NICE, SPEAK falsely imbued this statement with the authority of the scientific community, again deceiving the public.
• By encouraging other organisations to download, reproduce and distribute this leaflet, SPEAK hold responsibility for this untruth being used repeatedly by the antiviv/ AR movement.
In my view, animal studies play an essential role in the discovery and development of new medicines. Without them new treatments for human disease would not be found; and the safety of patients would be very seriously compromised. The notion that animal studies are “futile” is utterly wrong.
As a clinical investigator, there is no way I would be prepared to investigate new active substances in either volunteers or patients without essential information from studies in animals.
Now, a debate under the Chatham House rule means that although a transcript may be made of the debate, none of the comments are attributed to a speaker. The idea is to use confidentiality to encourage a free exchange of ideas and views. You might wonder then, how SPEAK (along with other antiviv/ animal rights groups) managed to attribute any comments to Sir Michael at all. The path of the comment’s evolution has been traced by journalist Kieren McCarthy in his blog.
When contacted by a journalist, SPEAK said that they had obtained the quote from a Daily Telegraph article. Now, it’s not good research practice to base your conclusions on something as flimsy as a single newspaper article reporting on a debate – again SPEAK’s lack of scientific rationale is exposed – but if you must, then you really shouldn’t mess around with it and remove the context just so that it says what you want it to!
Here’s how the Telegraph actually quoted Sir Michael as he spoke on the spiralling costs of drug development:
Patients must be more involved in regulatory decisions, he said. “The population is going to have to realise there is a trade-off between absolute safety and the development of new drugs.”
The animal study regime, which could take up to six years, was “utterly futile”. The industry must do more research on how to conduct efficient clinical trials.
Daily Telegraph, 17th Sept 2006, Cost timebomb ‘may kill supply of new drugs’
Note SPEAK haven’t even managed to accurately lift the few chosen words: “the animal study regime” – a study being an individual project in a particular area of research – became “the animal testing regime” – just a teensy bit more of a sweeping generalisation!
SPEAK are claiming this is a conspiracy – why didn’t NICE complain about the Telegraph?!?! I’ll spell out the two reasons for you Mel et al:
1. The Telegraph left it in context – OK the reporting was maybe a bit confused, but not actionable.
2. NICE has lots of important things to worry about, seeing that nasty drugs aren’t readily available etc… the Telegraph wrote about this once. SPEAK have been using, and widely distributing, this for over two years – long enough for it to come to NICE’s attention.
SPEAK aren’t alone in their lack of research; other groups have jumped on the ‘futile’ bandwagon, most notably EMP in one of their newsletters (highlighting their complete lack of scientific credentials once again in glorious techicolour)… they at least retained the word ‘study’, but still failed to take into account the context of the comment:
"The animal testing regime is clearly not an effective safety net - indeed Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, has publicly stated that the animal study regime is “utterly futile”.
EMP (formerly EFMA) Summer 2004 Newsletter
As these groups can’t be bothered to do serious sourcing and research, they should stop bitching that people don’t take them seriously.
<Wrap up...>
