We’re delighted to welcome Katy Clark MP to EDM 22, which holds the animal experimentation community’s ‘Concordat On Openness On Animal Research’ to public scientific account by calling for properly moderated, public scientific debates about the claims that animal experiments can ‘predict’ the responses of human patients. The debate conditions for this EDM are endorsed as “well set out and fair” by Britain’s foremost human rights defence barrister Michael Mansfield QC.
When scientists from the animal experimentation community claim that ‘animal research saves lives’ or ‘benefits medical research’, what they mean is that animal experiments claim to be able to ‘predict’ human responses by giving scientists answers about human conditions, studied in animal models of cancer, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, to name but some. That is why the Editor in Chief at the British Medical Journal uses the word ‘predictive’ in the title of her Editor’s Choice in June: How predictive and productive is animal research? This Editor’s Choice concluded with a quote 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’. Here’s the full article again.
In the meantime, Dr Andre Menache went straight to the heart of the prediction issue in his excellent interview on BBC TV last week, below, enjoy! You’ll see that vivisection activist Tom Holder appears to have invented a new term ‘almost cured’. This is nonsense: an illness is either cured or not, there is no ‘almost’. Unless, of course, you’re Tom Holder trying to claim animals can ‘predict’ human responses.