The Unreliability of Animal Testing

As some of you may know, Animal Testing is one particular area which I take great interest in, so last week, when I came across an article which claims scientists may have found a cure for diabetes, I wanted to dig deeper into the study.

In short, these scientists from Baylor, used a process called Gene Therapy where they take a gene called neurogenin3, attach it to a virus which then delivers the gene to the adult stem cells in the liver of the mouse. The mouses liver, within a week, brought the blood sugar levels back to normal.

There's a catch though: The virus they use to deliver the gene could be deadly in humans.


For anyone who is up on animal testing, this is not a surprising finding. The anatomy of the animals we drug test on and humans are drastically different and because of this, countless drugs pass in lab animals, yet need to be withdrawn from the market a few years later. One of the many classic examples, VIOXX, passed drug testing in six different species yet a few years later, needed to be withdrawn cause it was found to cause heart attacks. By the time it was recalled, it was estimated by the FDA that it killed around 28,000 people.

This example above is shocking, however it does not capture how poor the results of animal testing truly are. And actually, many people, even vegetarians, aren't aware of is how poor the predictability of animal testing is.

The FDA found that if a drug works in animal trials, 92% of the time it will not work in humans. It doesn't take a scientist to understand that is an unacceptable rate, but we must keep in mind, the reason it's only 92% and not closer to 99% is because the pass rate of many skin drugs is very high(this is attributed to "fake skin" rather than animal testing). Many of more serious drugs, such as cancer drugs, have an attrition rate closer to 98%. Lastly, of that 8% that passes in clinical trials, half of those drugs will be recalled from the market or relabeled because of unknown side effects.

These numbers are extremely interesting to look at especially on the pharmasutical side. Why on earth would these pharmasutical companies, which are entirely profit driven, continue to use procedures that are outdated and have terrible success rates? The answer is both politically and profitability oriented.

These companies could use there immense lobbying power on the government to change the FDA's policies on animal testing, however they would much rather stay on the FDA's good side.

In another angle, the FDA strongly suggests passing the potential drugs in two or more animals before approval. Since the variability from animal to animal is so high, if the drug doesn't work in a mouse or rat, it may work in an amphibian or rabbit. These additional outs prove to be beneficial to the pharmasutical companies when applying for drug approval.

Both of these factors, staying in the good graces of the FDA and the availability of different animal tests translates to one thing, faster and better chance for approval of drugs. Why is this so important? Just imagine passing a blockbuster drug such as Lipitor, which makes $13.7 million a day. A week or two faster in the drug approval process means millions more in profit. Even if the drug is recalled years later, the company still made hundreds of millions to billions in profits from the drug.

Animal testing is often times misunderstood as beneficial, yet in reality is holding science back. With a 92% attrition rate in animal testing, we need to use alternatives. The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods, funded by the US government, has looked at slightly under 200 alternatives to animal testing and recommended where to properly use them but the FDA still requires animal testing. Animal testing will not be thrown out overnight as alternatives must be approved on a test by test basis, however with increasing pressure from the public, the FDA will likely change it's policies on drug development. As a Pro-Science and Pro-progress supporter, I strongly urge the FDA to get rid of the animal tests that don't work and use alternative tests which yield better results.



Note: Before my inbox is flooded with e-mails regarding Genetically Engineered animals, I would like to be clear that these GE Animals mealy give a false hope to Pro-animal testers. These animals are going to come with the same and possibly additional problems that normal animal testing comes with. Humans and Animals are vastly genetically different, it's time we throw out the old technology(animal testing) and bring in something a little better that will bring out cures.