A More Balanced View of Animal Models

 


There are a few things the public must understand about the use of animal models in biomedical research.  Models are approximations.  No scientist will dispute that.  Approximations are never perfect, but they can be improved when discrepancies between animal and human studies are revealed and the reasons understood.  This is what allows scientists to continuously develop increasingly faithful models of human disease.


 


It is unfortunate that Dr. Greek selectively quotes scientists out of context throughout his book when they acknowledge some failure of animal models and appears to imply their statements support his contentions that animal research will never lead to cures for human ailments.  This is just not the case.


 


I will give a specific example.  In the first few pages of the book Dr. Greek quotes a major expert in cancer research, Dr. Bob Weinberg, Director of the Ludwig Center for Cancer Research at MIT, well-known for his discoveries of the first human oncogene, as saying in a Nature news article that “there is laundry list of problems with mouse models of cancer research”.  This is an accurate quote, but is one taken completely out of context.  In the very same article Dr. Weinberg went on to explain how such problems are being addressed by refining mouse models of cancer. [1]


 


Just to make sure my interpretation of Dr. Weinberg’s position was correct, I sent him the relevant passage from Dr. Greek’s book and requested his feedback.  Here is what he had to say (reprinted here with his permission):


 


“This is clearly a willful and intentional misreading of my intent, since my words were clearly intended by me to indicate that, while mouse models have their limitations,  they are by far the best thing we have at present and in the foreseeable future.  Indeed, they are indispensable for much of contemporary cancer research. 


 


I would emphasize in the strongest and most unambiguous way that as we begin to develop therapies that are increasingly effective in dealing with cancer in humans, we come to appreciate, with ever-increasing clarity, that many of the properties of cancer cells and tumors cannot be and will never be approximated by in vitro culture models, i.e., in which one studies cancer cells growing in the Petri dish.  For example, it is truly absurd to argue that it is possible to study clinically important processes such as tumor invasiveness into adjacent tissue and tumor metastasis without using an animal model.  I am disappointed that anyone would espouse such a point of view, even for a minute! “


 


and he concluded:


 


“If the American people wish to support Dr Greek's agenda, then they must at the same time give up the hope that future biomedical research will improve the powers of medicine to treat and cure disease -- it's as simple as that."


 


When Dr. Greek writes in his article that Instead of using mice, scientists could study humans with cancer and the cancerous tissues from those humans. What a novel idea; study the species you want to cure.”  He seems to be implying that nobody is actually studying human tumors.  Again, here is Dr. Weinberg:


 


“Dr. Greek says the silliest things, [..] implying that people are not studying human tumors, and implying that the kinds of experiments that one can do in mice can be done as well in humans -- truly mindless! “


 


 


References


 


1. Cancer: Off by a whisker


Having been part of a pharmacological study myself, and as the result having lost approximately 10 years of my life, I can say something about this subject.
There was a time when the human body could not be used at all in science , even when dead; the only other alternative being other animals . This does not make it right or accurate but it provided a beginning.
There is a time when animal models must fail as procedures and medications must ultimately be used directly on a human body to gauge their effectiveness. It was hell. I could not put two thoughts together to form even part of a sentence for many hours; something I would not wish on my worst enemy.
So, you who are anti-vivisection, would you like to take part in a clinical trial ? I dont think so..and computer-based human models are not nearly as effective as animal models are. Imperfect it is, but medicine is saving lives.
The medication that was in my pharmacological study had been previously tested on animals for its effectiveness and to determine the dosage needed. Would you rather that we do all that on humans?


When will Dr Ringach accept Dr Greeks offer to debate him publicly on the subject of animal experimentation?


Dr Ringach said, "Models are approximations. No scientist will dispute that." Science is not an approximation, it is either right or wrong , animal experimentation is not science and it never will be because the animal model will never be the same as the target species, the human. Real science is predictive, animal experiments are never predictive for humans and its supporters rely on selective and retrospective references to claim that it works. As 200 million or more animals are killed each year in ' research ' or ' testing ' it is not hard retrospectively to find some animal experiments which coincidentally were correct for humans, even 5% accuracy would give you 10 million to refer to, the rest, the majority that were wrong are ignored. That is not science.


re. cancer 'research' on animals.."The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse.. We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans." Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute


1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former Director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known..Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer."
more at www.pnc.com.au /~cafmr "Cancer research- a super fraud"


also curedisease.net mrmcmed.org


again see, animal testing : it doesnt work . look for, charities also fund this.


Can someone who makes their money doing animal research really get to call themselves "balanced"?


A proper scientific debate between the two men is the best forum for engagement. The real reason vivisectors refuse to come out and debate is obvious. But if they want to keep claiming that animal research is not the charade of profiteers, then they should prove it in a debate, for starters.


We know that if Dr. Greek was easy to debunk in a debate, the vivisectors would be falling all over themselves to debate him.


No matter. The days of this faux research sucking up American tax dollars are numbered.


"PREDICT does not mean getting the right answer OCCASIONALLY or suggesting further topics for investigation . These concepts are in the arena of BASIC RESEARCH. The question as to whether animal models are predictive for human disease and drug response must be resolved prior to any other discussion of animals in science or basic research as, if animal models are NOT predictive, it will impact on the rest of the debates. If the question is not resolved, then prediction of animal models will simply continue to be cited by the animal experimenters as a given. I am happy to debate Dr Ringach on any aspect of using animals in science provided the prediction issue is settled first. If Dr Ringach believes animals ARE predictive, then we have a disagreement that needs to be aired. If he does not, then he can merely say so and we can move on to whatever debate he wants. I believe a debate on the use of animals in neuroscience research would be very beneficial for society and look forward to participating in it," states Dr. Greek.


Yes, let's clear this up once and for all. Debate Dr. Greek in person and reveal your, ahem, scientific knowledge. Feel free to bring Jentsch along to try to help you. A debate based on science and reason--I'm sure many of us would like to witness this.


Ray Greek "he question as to whether animal models are predictive for human disease and drug response must be resolved prior to any other discussion of animals in science or basic research as, if animal models are NOT predictive, it will impact on the rest of the debates."


First of all is this true? Well no, it isn't. The majority of model organism research (including animal research ) does not depend on whether or not the model is 100% predictive of what the effect of a disease or treatment will be in humans. I don't know of any real scientist who claims that for a model organism to be considered valuable to biomedical research observations in it must always be capable of being extrapolated directly to humans, Ray Greek is simply setting up another straw man argument. Model organism research allows us to study biological processes in ways that are simply not possible in vitro or in human subjects, in many cases precisely because of species differences rather than despite them.


Secondly the whole topic of the predictivity of animal models is a lot more complicated than Dr. Greek makes it out to be, as I have discussed at http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/missing-the-bigger-picture and http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/publication-bias-not-unique-to-animal-research . That are many ways in which the ability of translational animal models (and models in general) to predict the outcome in humans can be improved, and many scientists are working to make sure that those improvements happen.


Some animal models of human disease and injury are good at predicting the outcome of human trials, others less so. Researchers understand this, and know when to treat the outcome of animal studies with caution. They also understand that even the best translational/preclinical animal models have their limitations, just as Phase I clinical trials in humans often do not accurately predict the out come of larger phase II clinical trials, and phase II clinical trails often do not predict the outcome of Phase II clinical trials. While many, indeed most, scientists and clinicians believe that clinical trials can be improved (better reporting, more female subjects, subjects better representing real patient groups etc) you don't find many (except for alt med quacks) using the limitations and flaws of current clinical trials to attack clinical trials in general, yet this is precisely what Ray Greek is doing in the case of animal research.


This is why few in the scientific or medical world are prepared to engage with him; to them he is at best a distraction from the real work that needs to be done to improve biomedical research.


I'm glad readers are checking text, and when necessary, asking authors about their original postings when it's suspected that they were taken out of context. I'm sure Dr. Weinberg appreciated being notified of Dr. Greek's error.


Dr. Greek pointed to the article, “Building a Better Mouse” http://www.the-scientist.com/2010/4/1/34/1 / as evidence that mouse models were invalid in his blog, “More Mouse Models of Cancer, Still Not Human.”


Anyone who actually read that article will know that much more is said. For instance, the article points out the notable success of Pier Paolo Pandolfi with a mouse model of human leukemia, and the promising research by AVEO Pharmaceuticals using mouse models to screen cancer drugs .


With this and with what has been said above by darioringach in mind, I agree with the view that Dr. Greek has a way of quoting information out of context.



His agenda here is clear. Keep the faux research gravy train rolling.


Ask Dario about how he slapped primates into medieval restraining devices and then gleefully went about gluing metal coils to their eyeballs to, ahem, study their visual cortex. And some of those photos of primates you see with metal electrodes jutting out of their skulls? Dario's handiwork. That's the science he's advocating in the 21st century. Dogs, rats, mice, and cats have also been his hapless victims.


Our taxes help pay for vivisection. That blows.


Dario is a pawn of the sprawling pharmaceutical industry: he will defend faux research to the bitter end until it's terminated. The profits are just too sweet.


What are Dario's hallmark contributions to science or human health ? Nada.


Dr. Greek is a medical doctor . Dario is not a medical doctor. And Dr. Weinberg? Of course he won't risk becoming a pariah. Weinberg is among the many who are damned to uphold the deadly charade of animal research .