BMJ  2004;328:1017 (24 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1017-b

Letter

Missing evidence that animal research benefits humans

Evidence is all around us

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—The general inference drawn by Pound et al from six systematic studies, that animal research does not benefit humans is not justified.¹ These studies represent a very small proportion of all animal research. The correct inference from their examples (in four out of six, animal studies agreed with clinical findings) is not that animal research was "valueless" but that it was not done at the right time or was disregarded. Selective referencing (study 5) does not reflect animal research giving the wrong signals; it exemplifies the Nelson syndrome—choosing which signals to see.

The real message of the article is not about the value of animal research but about the basis of clinical trials. Before clinical trials are started, all relevant existing research should be critically assessed, locally and externally. In trials of new drugs the external assessment is carried out by the licensing authority; where trials . . . [Full text of this article]

Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ y.bakhle@imperial.ac.uk

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?

Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, and Ian Roberts
BMJ 2004 328: 514-517. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Improving clinical research

Paul M Stewart
BMJ 2003 327: 999-1000. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Turning a blind eye to the evidence: Nelson’s Column is not a Wren Monument

Ronald C. Smith
bmj.com, 29 Apr 2004 [Full text]