Facebook Twitter

About Us

Who We Are

FLOE's Patron Peter Egan

Our Patron

We are proud and delighted that the acclaimed actor Peter Egan is FLOE’s Patron. Mr Egan, pictured here, says “I am delighted to become Patron of the science-based campaign For Life On Earth (FLOE), whose medical evidence is illustrated by the leading scientific Board in its field: Americans and Europeans for Medical Advancement (AFMA/EFMA). If, like me, you are shocked by the appalling cruelty animals are forced to endure in laboratory experiments – and you want to end all animal experiments – you will agree that understanding the fact that these atrocities are now proven, by current science, to also harm human patients is vital in the campaign to counter false PR. Please join me in helping to support FLOE’s call for a thorough scientific hearing, so that decision-makers can act on this crucial medical evidence, end intolerable cruelty towards animals and save lives!”

Our MPs

110 cross-party members of the UK Parliament signed last session’s Parliamentary EDM 175, calling for a public scientific hearing on claims that animals can predict the responses of human patients. On February 7th, many of these MPs debated Peter Egan’s Parliament petition: ‘Change the law to include laboratory animals in the Animal Welfare Act’. During this debate, Government Minister Kit Malthouse MP stated that if laboratory animals were included in the Animal Welfare Act, no animal experiments would be permitted. Please visit this link to watch key moments from that Westminster Hall debate .

Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE

Founder, the Jane Goodall Institute and UN Messenger of Peace

Dr. Jane Goodall is calling for primate experimenter Prof. Roger Lemon to agree to debate his position in the current EDM 278 science hearing:

Medical Expertise

God the Devil and Darwin book cover

The evidence which illustrates our scientific position is provided by the leading experts in this field, including the late Dr. Niall Shanks who wrote the first definitive book against creationism, otherwise known as intelligent design theory, titled God, the Devil and Darwin, forward by Prof. Richard Dawkins. Dr. Shanks went on to co-author with leading expert Dr. Ray Greek, their seminal work titled Animal Models in Light of Evolution, 2009, which disproves claims that laboratory animal models have predictive value for human patients, in disease and medicine research. This book places decades of empirical evidence within the context of current understanding of evolutionary biology and complex systems to deliver Trans-Species Modeling Theory. There is a layperson’s version of this book, specially written for the non-scientist, titled FAQS About the Use of Animals in Science; a handbook for the scientifically perplexed (2009) available here.

Protecting Human Health

FOR LIFE ON EARTH (FLOE) is a campaign initiative presented by a wide range of advocates for human health, including patients and their families.

We support Patients Campaigning For Cures, founded by an inspirational young lady, Rebecca Groves, who has multiple sclerosis.

Our position acknowledges the tradition of dedicated individuals who have achieved breakthroughs for science, including Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Jenner’s Germ Theory of Disease. Our illustration of science highlights the importance of such work, demonstrating that science now has the  Trans-Species Modeling Theory [1] – derived from complexity science and evolutionary biology – which explains immense empirical evidence (spanning decades) against the assumption that animals are able to predict responses in humans.

Up-to-date science has now reached a milestone that enriches our understanding of public health and safety, and provides a framework which supports common sense decisions not to take our children, and other relatives, to the veterinary clinic when they fall ill. This breakthrough for health reinforces standards already required by medical practice: most importantly that laboratory tests are accepted as predictive – and protective of the safety of humans – only if they are reliable in the region of at least 95%. These necessarily high standards are well illustrated when medicines have been withdrawn after side effects in even only 1% of a million patients, (2) and further illustrated when we reasonably expect the results from our blood test, x-ray or urine analysis to be in the range of at least 90% accurate, in order to diagnose and treat any illness we may have.

The criteria required for prediction in medical research and safety should match these appropriately high requirements. However, statistical analysis which determines effectiveness – from drug sniffing dogs to blood tests that diagnose cancer – has measured the claimed ability of animal models to predict responses in humans and exposes a 69% failure rate. (3) This is not an isolated study but one of many in the scientific literature and all conclude that animals have a predictive value for humans in the range of 31%. Again, it is important to realise that this statistical analysis is not anecdotal: there are no studies in the scientific literature that show evidence to the contrary, that animals have a predictive value beyond guesswork – either in medicine testing or disease research. It will be no surprise, therefore, to learn that the National Institute of Cancer has gone on record saying we have lost cures for cancer because of studies in rodents.

For further details please read the article Are Animal Models Predictive for Humans?  Visit FLOE’s RESOURCES and our Medical Ethics tab.

Science and Morality

Science as such is never about any moral issue, including animal welfare. Science addresses cold, objective factual evidence solely. So leaving aside the morality of ethics for a moment, FLOE’s illustration of science acknowledges that seven of the nine main ways animals are used in science – categories 3-9 on the following list – are scientifically viable uses of animals, for which – thankfully today – there exist many more efficient less expensive, modern synthetic or human biology-based alternatives, producing more accurate and safer scientific results. It is only the first two categories in the following list which are scientifically held as demonstrably invalid: specifically meaning the claimed use of animals to predict responses in humans which is now proven to have never worked in the first place. It’s worth taking a moment to pause here, and underline the fact that it does not make sense to call for ‘alternatives’ for a method that has never worked in the first place! Human-based research is not an ‘alternative replacement’ for animal testing – please beware the misleading 3Rs! Human-based research is valid and viable because it has a track record of success. And we should also add that by definition, the scientific position expressed in this list does not enter into a moral dialogue, that is to say, about the entirely separate, vital and equally valid issue concerning the terrible suffering of laboratory animals. Please visit our ‘Laboratory Animals’ tab for our supportive advocates for animals and FLOE’s moral position, thank you.

1. Animals are used as predictive models of humans for research into diseases such as cancer and AIDS.

2. Animals are used as predictive models of humans for testing drugs or other chemicals.

3. Animals are used as “spare parts”, such as when a person receives an aortic valve from a pig.

4. Animals are used as bioreactors or factories, such as for the production of insulin or monoclonal antibodies, or to maintain the supply of a virus.

5. Animals and animal tissues are used to study basic physiological principles.

6. Animals are used in education to educate and train medical students and to teach basic principles of anatomy in high school biology classes.

7. Animals are used as a modality for ideas or as a heuristic device, which is a component of basic science research.

8. Animals are used in research designed to benefit other animals of the same species or breed.

9. Animals are used in research in order to gain knowledge for knowledge sake.

For a great summary blog about the nine main ways animals are used in science please visit this link.

For more details please visit FAQS about the Use of Animals in Science (2009) Drs Greek MD and Shanks PhD, to buy that book.


1  Greek, R and L.A. Hansen, Questions regarding the predictive value of one evolved complex system for a second: exemplified by the SOD1 mouse Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 2013.

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6485 Masubuchi Y: Metabolic and non-metabolic factors determining troglitazone hepatotoxicity: a review. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2006, 21:347-356

3  Lumley and Walker: Animal Toxicity Studies: Their relevance for Man: Quay 1990 p73.

Why This Failed Animal Model Persists

~ The latest Home Office figures are from 2020 and show that a total of 4 270 experiments were conducted on beagles in 2020 (a significant increase in number compared to the figure of 4 055 in 2019). Out of the total number of experiments conducted on dogs in 2020, the majority (67%) were conducted to fulfil outdated regulatory requirements, as claimed toxicity tests for new human medicines. The vast majority of these dogs are Beagles, and the experiments typically involve being force-fed chemicals directly into dogs’ stomachs for up to 90 days, with no pain relief or anaesthetic. Our recent Daily Mirror exclusive revealed the true horror of this force-feeding procedure, which is classified as ‘mild suffering’ by the Home Office. These experiments are falsely claimed by the vested interests to be capable of measuring toxicity levels for new human medicines. In reality, peer reviewed studies show these specific tests fail around 70% of the time. This is not science; it’s less than the toss of a coin and worse than guessing. [1-3]

~ The high number of laboratory animals is not justified by up-to-date understanding of the crucial significance evolutionary biology has for medical research, contrasted with the antiquated origin of claims that animals are able to predict responses for humans. Please visit 1847 – 1878 Medical Ethics for more on this historical perspective.

Looking at the above within an historical, scientific and moral perspective, the following needs to be acknowledged:

Misleading yet popular campaigns which promote the “3Rs” (Reduction of animal numbers, Refinement of harmful procedures and Replacement of animals with ‘alternatives’) actually ignore the fact that experiments on animals are sanctioned – by law – under the category of science not ethics. The 3Rs is an alleged ‘ethical policy’ established in 1959 to achieve ‘human experimental technique’ on animals.

Experiments on animals continue to be licensed under the now disproven assumption that they can predict for humans. Reducing animal numbers and Refining harmful procedures does not address this present day scientific position. Moreover, the concept of Replacing animals with “alternatives” is highly misleading. Common sense dictates that there can be no “alternative” to a method that has been shown to fail: we do not need an “alternative” route that still arrives at animal model land. Common sense also dictates that any available “alternative” method is irrelevant if a method has been shown to have failed to the extent that experiments on animals have: failure should be dropped on its own grounds; this is not dependent on what else is available.

Please click here for the key financial aspect. For scientifically viable research methods please visit What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment on Animals? Medical Research for the Twenty-First Century (2006) Jean Swingle Greek DVM C. Ray Greek MD.

Please also visit the excellent new PR organisation Speaking of Human-Based Research.

How You Can Help

If you live in the UK, simply type in your postcode at this link to ask your MP to sign EDM 278, for a science hearing to publicly prove animal experiments are failing the search for human treatments and cures.

HELP DISTRIBUTE OUR LEAFLETS: tailor made as an introduction for colleagues, friends and family, our leaflet explains why animal experiments must stop – and how scientists outside the vested interests recognise the failure of animal models, writing about this often and openly in the scientific literature. Please help distribute our leaflets by ordering a free pack at our contact page. To see a PDF of the leaflet please visit this link.

Photo of front page of leaflet from the day of the march, 10th Sept

Laboratory Animals

FLOE is supported by preeminent primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall, acclaimed primatologist and television wildlife presenter Dr Charlotte Uhlenbroek PhD and the much respected, long established Beagle Association – Beagles being the chosen breed of dog for laboratory experiments, internationally. The Beagle Association states: ‘The Beagle Association supports FLOE in it’s campaign against testing on animals, as science now has the means to explain exactly how and why laboratory animals are not capable of predicting human response and so, therefore, testing on animals is not an appropriate way of predicting the human response to drugs.’

In clear distinction from FLOE’s illustration of science – which, as science, does not hold an ethical position about the suffering of laboratory animals – FLOE’s supportive advocates for animals do hold an ethical position about the acute suffering experienced by sentient animals, who are the subjects of these laboratory experiments.

The latest Home Office statistics show that 67% of lab Beagles were experimented on under the assumption that animals are able to predict toxicity in new medicines for humans: namely as claimed ‘predictive’ models in human ‘applied’ studies  (essentially for the toxicity testing of new human medicines and ADME studies). Indeed eighty-eight percent of non-human primates were experimented on for such ‘applied’ studies as were seventy-three percent of all rats.

Please visit our Key Points side panel – to the right – for the scientific definition of prediction and what this actually means for human health. Dr Charlotte Uhlenbroek, the Beagle Association and our additional Beagle supporters are able to appreciate what this means for non-human primates and Beagles with the vital help of investigations that have to be filmed undercover:

WARNING: Beagle toxicity experiments: graphic PETA undercover film footage

WARNING: Primate toxicity experiments, graphic PETA undercover film at Covance laboratory

WARNING: graphic Beagle and Primate toxicity experiments: filmed by a TV company.

WARNING: Click here for stills from the above undercover investigations.

The law that still requires these experiments opposes current understanding of complexity science and evolutionary biology, which explains exactly how and why predicting safety for humans is an impossible task for laboratory animals. Read more about this at the science blog here, where you can click on the many topics and headings, or follow this science blog in our News Feed.

WARNING: 2010 PETA undercover investigation resulted in closure of this Beagle laboratory

WARNING: beagle toxicity experiment, undercover lab photo

A fundamental reason why FLOE matters to its supportive advocates for animals is because the above behaviour would be prosecuted if it were taking place outside the environment of an animal laboratory. It is crucial to them, therefore, for the just and fair rule of law to recognise that such experiments not only fail the scientific criteria of prediction, but also fail to practise morally acceptable science. Please visit FLOE’s RESOURCES and watch the science lecture to appreciate how current science judges up-to-date evidence; for KEY POINTS at a glance, check out our side panel, to the right of this page.

Key Points

Statistics are tools that biological science uses to evaluate whether a method is predictive. For example, when we visit our doctor, we reasonably expect the results from our blood test, x-ray  or urine analysis to be in the range of 90% accurate in order to diagnose  and treat any illness we may have. This is reinforced by standards required by medical practise, where laboratory tests are accepted as predictive – and protective of the safety of humans – only if they are reliable in the region of at least 95%.

What defines prediction? In a scientific context, a prediction is a rigorous (often quantative) statement forecasting what will happen under specific conditions. For more on this please click here. In science, guessing correctly or finding correlations are not the same as predicting the answer.

There have been many studies which evaluate the ability of animal models to predict for humans, such as the study by Lumley and Walker: Animal Toxicity Studies: Their relevance for Man: Quay 1990 p73. This took six medicines and retrospectively tested them on animals. How valuable was the method at predicting for humans? In this study animals predicted correctly for humans only 31% of the time. This percentage would be around the same for random guessing - failing to match the standards required and accepted for prediction in medical practise, and entirely unacceptable for human patients who need help now.

It is important to appreciate that the above study is one of many in the scientific literature and all conclude with a predictive value in the same range of 31%. It will be no surprise, therefore, to learn that the National Institute of Cancer has gone on record saying we have lost cures for cancer because of studies in rodents.

It is also important to realise that the above study is not anecdotal: there are no studies in the scientific literature that show evidence to the contrary, that animals have a predictive value beyond guesswork - either in medicine testing or disease research.

Sometimes you do not need statistics to work out the value of a testing method:

Around 100 vaccines have been shown to have protected monkeys from HIV or SIV or SHIV. Each and every one of these has failed to protect humans from HIV. Thousands of neuroprotectant medicines have been tested in animals and shown to be effective. NONE have been effective in humans.

Please visit this leaflet (suitable as a print out) that summarises many further such examples and the reasons why clinical translation from animals to humans fails.


The scientific literature has also published many graphs which - again - consistently demonstrate no correlation between a medicine's ability to reach its target in primates, rodents, dogs or humans. Watch this science lecture for more details; read one of many examples of senior researchers who confirm  these statistics

Compare all of the above with the laboratory animal model community's literature, illustrated here by Gad S.C's Animal Models in Toxicology Second Edition 2007:

Biomedical sciences use of animals as models (is to) help understand and predict responses in humans, in toxicology and pharmacology...by and large animals have worked exceptionally well as predictive models for humans...Animals have been used as models for centuries to predict what chemicals and environmental factors would do to humans....The use of animals as predictors of ill effects has grown since that time...if we correctly identify toxic agents (using animals and other predictive model systems) in advance of a product or agent being introduced into the market place or environment, generally it will not be introduced...

Ironically, even the laboratory animal model community has difficulty agreeing with its own text book, above, as demonstrated by its  Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models 1994:

It is impossible to give reliable general rules for the validity of extrapolation from one species to another. This…can often only be verified after the first trials in the target species (humans)…Extrapolation from animal models…will always remain a matter of hindsight….[( Salén 1994)  p6] 

Please help FLOE achieve its aims: to free human medicine from the damaging grip of misapplied veterinary principles and help ensure the unobstructed advance of personalised medicine:


For more on FLOE's illustration of science please visit AFMA/EFMA