Laboratory and Basic Science Research Commons^™

Chimpanzee Research: An Examination Of Its Contribution To Biomedical Knowledge And Efficacy In Combating Human Diseases, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe, Theodora Capaldo

Jonathan Balcombe, PhD

Research on captive chimpanzees incurs considerable animal welfare, ethical and financial costs. Advocates of such research claim these costs are outweighed by substantial advancements in biomedical knowledge, and that the genetic similarity of chimpanzees to humans enables the former to make critical contributions to preventing, diagnosing and combating human diseases. To assess these claims, we examined the disciplines investigated in 749 studies of captive chimpanzees published from 1995-2004 inclusive, and subjected 95 randomly selected papers to a detailed citation analysis:

49.5% (47/95) of papers had not been cited at the time of this study; 38.5% (34/95) were cited by 116 …

An Examination Of Chimpanzee Use In Human Cancer Research, Jarrod Bailey

Jarrod Bailey, PhD

Advocates of chimpanzee research claim the genetic similarity of humans and chimpanzees make them an indispensable research tool to combat human diseases. Given that cancer is a leading cause of human death worldwide, one might expect that if chimpanzees were needed for, or were productive in, cancer research, then they would have been widely used. This comprehensive literature analysis reveals that chimpanzees have scarcely been used in any form of cancer research, and that chimpanzee tumours are extremely rare and biologically different from human cancers. Often, chimpanzee citations described peripheral use of chimpanzee cells and genetic material in predominantly human …

Monkey-Based Research On Human Disease: The Implications Of Genetic Differences, Jarrod Bailey

Jarrod Bailey, PhD

Assertions that the use of monkeys to investigate human diseases is valid scientifically are frequently based on a reported 90–93% genetic similarity between the species. Critical analyses of the relevance of monkey studies to human biology, however, indicate that this genetic similarity does not result in sufficient physiological similarity for monkeys to constitute good models for research, and that monkey data do not translate well to progress in clinical practice for humans. Salient examples include the failure of new drugs in clinical trials, the highly different infectivity and pathology of SIV/HIV, and poor extrapolation of research on Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s …

Lessons From Chimpanzee-Based Research On Human Disease: The Implications Of Genetic Differences, Jarrod Bailey

Jarrod Bailey, PhD

Assertions that the use of chimpanzees to investigate human diseases is valid scientifically are frequently based on a reported 98–99% genetic similarity between the species. Critical analyses of the relevance of chimpanzee studies to human biology, however, indicate that this genetic similarity does not result in sufficient physiological similarity for the chimpanzee to constitute a good model for research, and furthermore, that chimpanzee data do not translate well to progress in clinical practice for humans. Leading examples include the minimal citations of chimpanzee research that is relevant to human medicine, the highly different pathology of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C virus …

Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: 3. Alternatives To The Bioassay, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Jarrod Bailey, PhD

Conventional animal carcinogenicity tests take around three years to design, conduct and interpret. Consequently, only a tiny fraction of the thousands of industrial chemicals currently in use have been tested for carcinogenicity. Despite the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of skilled personnel hours, as well as millions of animal lives, several investigations have revealed that animal carcinogenicity data lack human specificity (i.e. the ability to identify human non-carcinogens), which severely limits the human predictivity of the bioassay. This is due to the scientific inadequacies of many carcinogenicity bioassays, and numerous serious biological obstacles, which render profoundly …

An Analysis Of The Use Of Animal Models In Predicting Human Toxicology And Drug Safety, Jarrod Bailey, Michelle Thew, Michael Balls

Jarrod Bailey, PhD

Animal use continues to be central to preclinical drug development, in spite of a lack of its demonstrable validity. The current nadir of new drug approvals and the drying-up of pipelines may be a direct consequence of this. To estimate the evidential weight given by animal data to the probability that a new drug may be toxic to humans, we have calculated Likelihood Ratios (LRs) for an extensive data set of 2,366 drugs, for which both animal and human data are available, including tissue-level effects and MedDRA Level 1–4 biomedical observations. This was done for three preclinical species (rat, mouse …

Cancerous Contradictions: The Mis-Regulation Of Human Carcinogens Based On Animal Data, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Jarrod Bailey, PhD

The regulation of human exposures to potential carcinogens constitutes society’s most important use of animal carcinogenicity data. However, for environmental contaminants of greatest U.S. concern, we found that in most cases (58.1%; 93/160) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered the animal data inadequate to support a classification of probable human carcinogen or noncarcinogen.

The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is a leading international authority on carcinogenicity assessments. For chemicals lacking human exposure data (the great majority), IARC classifications of identical chemicals were significantly more conservative than EPA classifications (p

Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: 2. Obstacles To Extrapolation Of Data To Humans, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Jarrod Bailey, PhD

Due to limited human exposure data, risk classification and the consequent regulation of exposure to potential carcinogens has conventionally relied mainly upon animal tests. However, several investigations have revealed animal carcinogenicity data to be lacking in human predictivity. To investigate the reasons for this, we surveyed 160 chemicals possessing animal but not human exposure data within the US Environmental Protection Agency chemicals database, but which had received human carcinogenicity assessments by 1 January 2004. We discovered the use of a wide variety of species, with rodents predominating, and of a wide variety of routes of administration, and that there were …

Cancerous Contradictions: The Mis-Regulation Of Human Carcinogens Based On Animal Data, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Andrew Knight, PhD

The regulation of human exposures to potential carcinogens constitutes society’s most important use of animal carcinogenicity data. However, for environmental contaminants of greatest U.S. concern, we found that in most cases (58.1%; 93/160) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered the animal data inadequate to support a classification of probable human carcinogen or noncarcinogen.

The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is a leading international authority on carcinogenicity assessments. For chemicals lacking human exposure data (the great majority), IARC classifications of identical chemicals were significantly more conservative than EPA classifications (p

Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: 3. Alternatives To The Bioassay, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Andrew Knight, Ph.D.

Conventional animal carcinogenicity tests take around three years to design, conduct and interpret. Consequently, only a tiny fraction of the thousands of industrial chemicals currently in use have been tested for carcinogenicity. Despite the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of skilled personnel hours, as well as millions of animal lives, several investigations have revealed that animal carcinogenicity data lack human specificity (i.e. the ability to identify human non-carcinogens), which severely limits the human predictivity of the bioassay. This is due to the scientific inadequacies of many carcinogenicity bioassays, and numerous serious biological obstacles, which render profoundly …

Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: 3. Alternatives To The Bioassay, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Jonathan Balcombe, PhD

Conventional animal carcinogenicity tests take around three years to design, conduct and interpret. Consequently, only a tiny fraction of the thousands of industrial chemicals currently in use have been tested for carcinogenicity. Despite the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of skilled personnel hours, as well as millions of animal lives, several investigations have revealed that animal carcinogenicity data lack human specificity (i.e. the ability to identify human non-carcinogens), which severely limits the human predictivity of the bioassay. This is due to the scientific inadequacies of many carcinogenicity bioassays, and numerous serious biological obstacles, which render profoundly …

Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: 2. Obstacles To Extrapolation Of Data To Humans, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Jonathan Balcombe, PhD

Due to limited human exposure data, risk classification and the consequent regulation of exposure to potential carcinogens has conventionally relied mainly upon animal tests. However, several investigations have revealed animal carcinogenicity data to be lacking in human predictivity. To investigate the reasons for this, we surveyed 160 chemicals possessing animal but not human exposure data within the US Environmental Protection Agency chemicals database, but which had received human carcinogenicity assessments by 1 January 2004. We discovered the use of a wide variety of species, with rodents predominating, and of a wide variety of routes of administration, and that there were …