Just one famous example is the drug Fen-phen, which was not dangerous in mice, but was in humans (causing damage to the human heart). And of course, there is the famous Thalidomide case, where thousands of children were born with malformed arms and legs. So, this argument against non-human animal models isn't just about ideologies or even other species, it's about also human health.
Again, fault is to be found with clinical trials. Mouse models of human diseases and agent testing is at the very beginning of a long road to drug development.
I would say that the reason that scientists continue to use non-human models could very easily have more to do with politics and lack of creativity than anything else.
This statement, in particular, shows a serious lack of understanding about what it takes to work with animals/animal models in today's research environment. It is NOT easy. It's almost prohibitively expensive and very difficult to get protocols (which require literally pages of justification) approved.
Also, I'd love to see a more objective citation than the incredibly biased NAVS site.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-03-09 05:39 pm (UTC)Again, fault is to be found with clinical trials. Mouse models of human diseases and agent testing is at the very beginning of a long road to drug development.
I would say that the reason that scientists continue to use non-human models could very easily have more to do with politics and lack of creativity than anything else.
This statement, in particular, shows a serious lack of understanding about what it takes to work with animals/animal models in today's research environment. It is NOT easy. It's almost prohibitively expensive and very difficult to get protocols (which require literally pages of justification) approved.
Also, I'd love to see a more objective citation than the incredibly biased NAVS site.