Abstract
The notion that animals could be used as predictive models in science has been influenced by relatively recent developments in the fields of complexity science, evolutionary and developmental biology, genetics, and evolutionary biology in general. Combined with empirical evidence, which has led scientists in drug development to acknowledge that a new, nonanimal model is needed, a theory—not a hypothesis—has been formed to explain why animals function well as models for humans at lower levels of organization but are unable to predict outcomes at higher levels of organization. Trans-Species Modeling Theory (TSMT) places the empirical evidence in the context of a scientific theory and thus, from a scientific perspective, the issue of where animals can and cannot be used in science has arguably been settled. Yet, some in various areas of science or science-related fields continue to demand that more evidence be offered before the use of animal models in medical research and testing be abandoned on scientific grounds. In this article, I examine TSMT, the empirical evidence surrounding the use of animal models, and the opinions of experts. I contrast these facts with the opinions and positions of those that have a direct or indirect vested interest—financial or otherwise—in animal models. I then discuss the ethical implications regarding research constructed to find cures and treatments for humans.
Highlights
Before I analyze the use of animals in scientific research and testing, I need to delineate the areas of scienceHow to cite this paper: Greek, R. (2014) The Ethical Implications for Humans in Light of the Poor Predictive Value of Animal Models
I have used the formula for sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) to support this contention as most of the literature available has not presented data sufficient to calculate specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) or likelihood ratios (LRs)
When the consequences of very small changes in human genetic makeup—such as single nucleotide polymorphisms, copy number variants, the effect of gene deletion, differences in genetic regulation and expression, differences in gene and protein networks, alternative splicing, background and modifier genes, pleiotropy, and mutations in general—are considered, it should come as no surprise that the even greater genetic differences between species will result in dramatically different outcomes to perturbations like diseases and drugs
Summary
Before I analyze the use of animals in scientific research and testing, I need to delineate the areas of science. If the vivisection community had claimed that animal models helped them form hypotheses for testing in humans, the anti-vivisectionists of the 20th century would have had little to criticize from a scientific perspective. By the last few decades of the 20th century, there were vast numbers of studies and examples demonstrating that animal models clearly failed in terms of predicting human response to drugs and disease. Does not agree that knowledge from the fields of evolutionary biology and complexity science has added to the empirical data adequately to justify, as of say, November 2013, abandoning animal models for drug and disease response. What Was Known Regarding the Predictive Value of Animal Models Prior to the Publication by Bailey et al.?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
