Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Science is based on facts and their discourse. Willingly or unwillingly, facts are mixed with opinion, i.e., views or judgments formed, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This is often necessary, where we have controversial facts or no definitive evidence yet, because we need to take decisions or have to prioritize. Evidence-based approaches aim at identifying the facts and their quality objectively and transparently; they are now increasingly embraced in toxicology, especially by employing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, quality scoring, risk-of-bias tools, etc. These are core to Evidence-based Toxicology. Such approaches aim at minimizing opinion, the "eminence-based" part of science. Animal experiments are the basis of a lot of our textbook knowledge in the life sciences, have helped to develop desperately needed therapies, and have made this world a safer place. However, they represent only one of the many possible approaches to accomplish all these things. Like all approaches, they come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated. This article aims to summarize their limitations and challenges beside the ethical and economical concerns (i.e., costs and duration as well as costs following wrong decisions in product development): they include reproducibility, inadequate reporting, statistical under-powering, lack of inter-species predictivity, lack of reflection of human diversity and of real-life exposure. Each and every one of these increasingly discussed aspects of animal experiments can be amended, but this would require enormous additional resources. Together, they prompt a need to engineer a new paradigm to ensure the safety of patients and consumers, new products and therapies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-200
Number of pages8
JournalAltex
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Toxicology
Costs and Cost Analysis
Textbooks
Biological Science Disciplines
Patient Safety
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • alternative methods
  • animal models
  • limitations
  • preclinical research
  • reproducibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing. / Hartung, Thomas.

In: Altex, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2017, p. 193-200.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7deeb8e201384e55b98e277c52f326f1,
title = "Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing",
abstract = "Science is based on facts and their discourse. Willingly or unwillingly, facts are mixed with opinion, i.e., views or judgments formed, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This is often necessary, where we have controversial facts or no definitive evidence yet, because we need to take decisions or have to prioritize. Evidence-based approaches aim at identifying the facts and their quality objectively and transparently; they are now increasingly embraced in toxicology, especially by employing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, quality scoring, risk-of-bias tools, etc. These are core to Evidence-based Toxicology. Such approaches aim at minimizing opinion, the {"}eminence-based{"} part of science. Animal experiments are the basis of a lot of our textbook knowledge in the life sciences, have helped to develop desperately needed therapies, and have made this world a safer place. However, they represent only one of the many possible approaches to accomplish all these things. Like all approaches, they come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated. This article aims to summarize their limitations and challenges beside the ethical and economical concerns (i.e., costs and duration as well as costs following wrong decisions in product development): they include reproducibility, inadequate reporting, statistical under-powering, lack of inter-species predictivity, lack of reflection of human diversity and of real-life exposure. Each and every one of these increasingly discussed aspects of animal experiments can be amended, but this would require enormous additional resources. Together, they prompt a need to engineer a new paradigm to ensure the safety of patients and consumers, new products and therapies.",
keywords = "alternative methods, animal models, limitations, preclinical research, reproducibility",
author = "Thomas Hartung",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.14573/altex.1703291",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "193--200",
journal = "ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten",
issn = "1868-596X",
publisher = "Elsevier GmbH",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing

AU - Hartung, Thomas

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Science is based on facts and their discourse. Willingly or unwillingly, facts are mixed with opinion, i.e., views or judgments formed, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This is often necessary, where we have controversial facts or no definitive evidence yet, because we need to take decisions or have to prioritize. Evidence-based approaches aim at identifying the facts and their quality objectively and transparently; they are now increasingly embraced in toxicology, especially by employing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, quality scoring, risk-of-bias tools, etc. These are core to Evidence-based Toxicology. Such approaches aim at minimizing opinion, the "eminence-based" part of science. Animal experiments are the basis of a lot of our textbook knowledge in the life sciences, have helped to develop desperately needed therapies, and have made this world a safer place. However, they represent only one of the many possible approaches to accomplish all these things. Like all approaches, they come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated. This article aims to summarize their limitations and challenges beside the ethical and economical concerns (i.e., costs and duration as well as costs following wrong decisions in product development): they include reproducibility, inadequate reporting, statistical under-powering, lack of inter-species predictivity, lack of reflection of human diversity and of real-life exposure. Each and every one of these increasingly discussed aspects of animal experiments can be amended, but this would require enormous additional resources. Together, they prompt a need to engineer a new paradigm to ensure the safety of patients and consumers, new products and therapies.

AB - Science is based on facts and their discourse. Willingly or unwillingly, facts are mixed with opinion, i.e., views or judgments formed, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This is often necessary, where we have controversial facts or no definitive evidence yet, because we need to take decisions or have to prioritize. Evidence-based approaches aim at identifying the facts and their quality objectively and transparently; they are now increasingly embraced in toxicology, especially by employing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, quality scoring, risk-of-bias tools, etc. These are core to Evidence-based Toxicology. Such approaches aim at minimizing opinion, the "eminence-based" part of science. Animal experiments are the basis of a lot of our textbook knowledge in the life sciences, have helped to develop desperately needed therapies, and have made this world a safer place. However, they represent only one of the many possible approaches to accomplish all these things. Like all approaches, they come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated. This article aims to summarize their limitations and challenges beside the ethical and economical concerns (i.e., costs and duration as well as costs following wrong decisions in product development): they include reproducibility, inadequate reporting, statistical under-powering, lack of inter-species predictivity, lack of reflection of human diversity and of real-life exposure. Each and every one of these increasingly discussed aspects of animal experiments can be amended, but this would require enormous additional resources. Together, they prompt a need to engineer a new paradigm to ensure the safety of patients and consumers, new products and therapies.

KW - alternative methods

KW - animal models

KW - limitations

KW - preclinical research

KW - reproducibility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85025086614&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85025086614&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14573/altex.1703291

DO - 10.14573/altex.1703291

M3 - Article

C2 - 28407174

AN - SCOPUS:85025086614

VL - 34

SP - 193

EP - 200

JO - ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten

JF - ALTEX : Alternativen zu Tierexperimenten

SN - 1868-596X

IS - 2

ER -