Medicine and Health Sciences Commons^™

Bias During The Evaluation Of Animal Studies, Andrew Knight

Morality and Ethics of Animal Experimentation Collection

My recent book entitled The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments seeks to answer a key question within animal ethics, namely: is animal experimentation ethically justifiable? Or, more precisely, is it justifiable within the utilitarian cost:benefit framework that fundamentally underpins most regulations governing animal experimentation? To answer this question I reviewed more than 500 scientific publications describing animal studies, animal welfare impacts, and alternative research, toxicity testing and educational methodologies. To minimise bias I focused primarily on large-scale systematic reviews that had examined the human clinical and toxicological utility of animal studies. Despite this, Dr. Susanne Prankel recently reviewed my …

Reviewing Existing Knowledge Prior To Conducting Animal Studies, Andrew Knight

Experimentation Collection

Highly polarised viewpoints about animal experimentation have often prevented agreement. However, important common ground between advocates and opponents was demonstrated within a discussion forum hosted at www.research-methodology.org.uk in July–August 2008, by the independent charity, SABRE Research UK. Agreement existed that many animal studies have methodological flaws — such as inappropriate sample sizes, lack of randomised treatments, and unblinded outcome assessments — that may introduce bias and limit statistical validity. There was also agreement that systematic reviews of the human utility of animal models yield the highest quality of evidence, as their reliance on methodical and impartial methods to select significant …

Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: Implications For The Reach System, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Experimentation Collection

The 2001 European Commission proposal for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) aims to improve public and environmental health by assessing the toxicity of, and restricting exposure to, potentially toxic chemicals. The greatest benefits are expected to accrue from decreased cancer incidences. Hence the accurate identification of chemical carcinogens must be a top priority for the REACH system. Due to a paucity of human clinical data, the identification of potential human carcinogens has conventionally relied on animal tests. However, our survey of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) toxic chemicals database revealed that, for a majority of the …

Animal Carcinogenicity Studies: 1. Poor Human Predictivity, Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey, Jonathan Balcombe

Experimentation Collection

The regulation of human exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals constitutes society’s most important use of animal carcinogenicity data. Environmental contaminants of greatest concern within the USA are listed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemicals database. However, of the 160 IRIS chemicals lacking even limited human exposure data but possessing animal data that had received a human carcinogenicity assessment by 1 January 2004, we found that in most cases (58.1%; 93/160), the EPA considered animal carcinogenicity data inadequate to support a classification of probable human carcinogen or non-carcinogen. For the 128 chemicals with human or …

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

Experimentation Collection

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 …

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

Experimentation Collection

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 …

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

Experimentation Collection

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