Literature DB >> 16186990

[Animal experiments in biomedical research. An evaluation of the clinical relevance of approved animal experimental projects].

Toni Lindl1, Manfred Voelkel, Roman Kolar.   

Abstract

According to the German Animal Welfare Act, scientists in Germany must provide an ethical and scientific justification for their application to the licensing authority prior to undertaking an animal experiment. Such justifications commonly include lack of knowledge on the development of human diseases or the need for better or new therapies for humans. The present literature research is based on applications to perform animal experiments from biomedical study groups of three universities in Bavaria (Germany) between 1991 and 1993. These applications were classified as successful in the animal model in the respective publications. We investigated the frequency of citations, the course of citations, and in which type of research the primary publications were cited: subsequent animal-based studies, in vitro studies, review articles or clinical studies. The criterion we applied was whether the scientists succeeded in reaching the goal they postulated in their applications, i.e. to contribute to new therapies or to gain results with direct clinical impact. The outcome was unambiguous: even though 97 clinically orientated publications containing citations of the above-mentioned publications were found (8% of all citations), only 4 publications evidenced a direct correlation between the results from animal experiments and observations in humans (0,3%). However, even in these 4 cases the hypotheses that had been verified successfully in the animal experiment failed in every respect. The implications of our findings may lead to demands concerning improvement of the licensing practice in Germany.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16186990

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ALTEX        ISSN: 1868-596X            Impact factor:   6.043


  6 in total

Review 1.  Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

Authors:  Ray Greek; Jean Greek
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 2.464

Review 2.  The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling.

Authors:  Ray Greek; Annalea Pippus; Lawrence A Hansen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research.

Authors:  Mark J Rice
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 2.464

4.  Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates.

Authors:  Cathalijn H C Leenaars; Carien Kouwenaar; Frans R Stafleu; André Bleich; Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga; Rob B M De Vries; Franck L B Meijboom
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 5.531

5.  Reviewing the Review: A Pilot Study of the Ethical Review Process of Animal Research in Sweden.

Authors:  Svea Jörgensen; Johan Lindsjö; Elin M Weber; Helena Röcklinsberg
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  Clinical impact of high-profile animal-based research reported in the UK national press.

Authors:  Jarrod Bailey; Michael Balls
Journal:  BMJ Open Sci       Date:  2020-10-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.