FRAME Annual Lecture 2013
Speaker Dr Jarrod Bailey discussed his work reviewing drug testing on dogs and evidence that their use in predicting human safety is little better than chance.
Dr Bailey, science adviser to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) has just completed a project with Michelle Thew, also of the BUAV, and Professor Michael Balls, FRAME's Life President. They looked at data from 2,366 publicly-available toxicological studies that used dogs, and asked whether the use of dogs contributes significant weight to the evidence predicting the toxicity of potetial new drugs in humans. Their findings show that canine models are highly inconsistent predictors of toxic responses in humans.
It is argued by many, based on robust science, that a comprehensive suite of more reliable alternative methods is available to drug development. Combined with considerable public concern over the use of dogs in science, the high ethical costs of using dogs, the sensitive nature of dogs, and the desire—expressed within the industry—for the use of dogs as a second species in drug testing to have a scientific, rather than a habitual, basis, we conclude that preclinical testing of pharmaceuticals in dogs cannot currently be justified on scientific or ethical grounds.
For the paper, click here.
Archived Jan 2014