Facebook Twitter Google Plus

Animal Models in Light of EvolutionDr Charlotte Uhlenbroek with orangutanDNA holding planet earthFAQs About the Use of Animals in ScienceHuman baby with Beagle puppyScientists examining evidence

Loading the player ...

Public Scientific Debates

Watch the science lecture

Public Scientific Debates

Welcome to For Life on Earth

It is indeed stating the obvious to say that we do not rush our children and other relatives to the local veterinary clinic if they are ill, or worse, critically ill. Likewise, we do not take our companion animals to the outpatient's emergency departments at our hospitals when they are ill.

FOR LIFE ON EARTH presents science that supports this common sense, science that is best illustrated by the leading medical Board in its field Americans and Europeans For Medical Advancement (AFMA/EFMA) and the seminal work Animal Models in Light of Evolution (2009). There is a layman's version of this book, written especially for the non-scientist, entitled FAQS About the Use of Animals in Science.

Both these books explain exactly how and why experimenting on animals - to predict responses in humans - is asking animals to do something they are not capable of. This, in turn, is damaging human medicine. Immense empirical evidence supports this position. Animal Models in Light of Evolution places this empirical evidence within the context of evolutionary biology and provides us with conclusions that entirely support our decisions not to take critically ill people to the vet. The question of the claimed predictive value of animal models is increasingly being highlighted by leading scientific journals, including the British Medical Journal which published its Editor's Choice in June 2014, titled  How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research?  This article concluded by quoting from the paper it cited:

“If research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public’s continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced.”

Science has now entered the age of personalised medicine where treatments are tailor-made for you and you alone: we now understand that even identical twins can suffer from different illnesses and require treatments that are unique to their genetic profiles. This extraordinary progress is being held back by the persistent use of animal models.

FOR LIFE ON EARTH exists because evidence from up-to-date science demands that experiments on animals must be stopped on human medical and scientific grounds.

Read More

A NEW INITIATIVE! Patients Campaigning for Cures

Multiple sclerosis patient, Rebecca Groves, narrated an introductory video slide-show representing the needs of patients and their families for the first Parliamentary EDM in which we were highlighted. Rebecca has now left FLOE to form her own excellent organisation Patients Campaigning For Cures.

We are honoured that Sir Alan Meale MP has tabled Parliamentary EDM 400

Please ask your MP to sign the EDM:  simply type in your post code at this link to send your MP a letter today.

To date, 130 MPs have signed four Early Day Motions calling for a properly moderated, public scientific debate about claims that animal experiments have 'predictive value' for human patients.

For a test to be accepted as predictive for patients, by our hospital doctors and GPs, it needs to succeed around 90% of the time, otherwise it is abandoned [1-4] Mandatory animal testing, for the safety of new human medicines, correlates with human outcomes around 31% of the time - that's less than the toss of a coin - and is dangerous for human patients [4-5]

The question of the failure of animal models is increasingly becoming the focus of leading scientific journals, including The BMJ, whose Editor in Chief, Dr Fiona Godlee, published an Editor's Choice, June 2014, titled 'How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research?' [6] This paper concluded thus, from the paper it cited:

'If animals continue to be unable to reasonably predict the responses of human patients, then the public's continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced' (Emphasis added).

One of Britain's foremost human rights defence barristers, Michael Mansfield QC (pictured below) has endorsed as "well set out and fair" the conditions for the MP's called for medical science debate. Independent judges, from the relevant fields of scientific expertise, will be present to decide which opposing scientific position is valid, based on referenced position papers and the live debate itself.

We are in dialogue with the animal experimentation community's lobbying group 'Understanding Animal Research' with a view to holding their 'Concordat on Openness on Animal Research' to account, which proclaims to develop communications with the public and media. To date, no animal-based research scientist has agreed to participate in the MPs' called for scientific debate hearing.

Speaking of Human-Based Research

We're delighted to announce our collaboration with an exciting and innovative new PR company Speaking of Human-Based Research, which is led by University academic Alex Irving.

References

1. FDA panel recommends continued use of controversial diabetes drug. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9903/26/rezulin.review.02/index.html

2. Masubuchi Y: Metabolic and non-metabolic factors determining troglitazone hepatotoxicity: a review. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2006, 21: 347-356. 10.2133/dmpk.21.347 View ArticleGoogle Scholar

3. Topol EJ: Failing the public health – rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2004, 351: 1707-1709. 10.1056/NEJMp048286View ArticleGoogle Scholar

4. Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J: Are Animal Models Predictive for Humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2009, 4:2.

5. Heywood R. ‘Clinical Toxicity – Could it have been predicted? Post-marketing experience’; pp. 57–67 in Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, editors Lumley CE, Walker S Lancaster, Quay, 1990.

6. BMJ 2014; 348 g 3719