The International Journal of Clinical Medicine has published a critique by leading medical experts European for Medical Advancement (EFMA), addressing a dog study co-written by FRAME and the BUAV as ‘scientifically unsustainable and unethical’.
We present a statement about EFMA’s important critique, excerpt below, and urge our readers to read our statement in full here:
SCIENCE MUST BE ADDRESSED BY THOSE QUALIFIED TO DO SO, IF WE ARE TO HELP LABORATORY ANIMALS
The International Journal of Clinical Medicine has published a critique by leading medical experts Europeans for Medical Advancement, (EFMA) addressing a dog study co-written by FRAME and the BUAV, excerpt summary below:
…suggesting as Bailey et al., do that only recently has enough evidence existed to abandon the practice of using animals in general and dogs in particular in toxicity testing is not only scientifically unsustainable but unethical.
We also add that Bailey et al.’s suggestion conflicts with BUAV’s crucial role in filming undercover for the historic Cambridge Coalition, which hired EFMA as their chief scientific witness: because Cambridge University were planning to build their proposed new primate lab on Green Belt land, they had to prove its primate experiments were going to be medically and scientifically ‘in the national interest’. After a two week inquiry, in which scientific evidence was submitted from both sides, EFMA defeated the primate lab with an internationally precedent decision, the government inspector ruled: ‘On the basis of the technical input, therefore, I could not conclude that need in the national interest is demonstrated insofar as this pertains to the scientific/medical research and procedures undertaken by the University’.
FLOE carefully differentiates between equally valid a) moral concerns about animal ethics and b) science, which can only ever be about objectively verifiable factual evidence. Moral concerns expressed by the BUAV, superbly illustrated in their courageous undercover cruelty exposes, are greatly admired by FLOE’s advocates for animals. However, if we are to end experiments on animals we must honour the current scientific position.
The BUAV published a study about dog experiments with an organisation called FRAME, in November 2013. FRAME support the continued use of animals as experimental subjects in laboratories; the director of their ‘alternatives’laboratory is an active animal experimenter Dr Andrew Bennett and FRAME promote what they describe as ‘alternatives’ to the use of animals as predictive models for human patients, only if such an alternative exists. This position entirely ignores current understanding of evolutionary biology which has proven that the results from animal experiments are not capable of predicting responses in human patients.
Empirical evidence documenting the failure of trying to use results from animal experiments to predict responses in human patients is acknowledged by the wider scientific community[ 1], pharmaceutical companies; was the focus of the Editor in Chief at the British Medical Journal’s Editors Choice in June and has been placed within the context of current understanding of evolutionary biology by Trans-Species Modelling Theory. For Life On Earth, her supporters and affiliated Beagle campaigns are at a loss to understand why the BUAV has chosen to publish a scientific paper with a pro-vivisection organisation which ignores this up-to-date scientific knowledge.
Moreover, the definition of failure does not require ‘alternatives’ that also arrive at animal model land! Failure is always dropped on its own grounds. The correct term for medical research which works for human patients is ‘viable’ or ‘valid’ – not alternative! For more on the distracting 3R’s ‘alternative’ approach please visit the local campaign in Hull, for whom FLOE illustrate scientific evidence.
For our full statement please visit this link
 R Greek The Ethical Implications for Humans in Light of the Poor Predictive Value of Animal Models International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2014, 5, 966-1005