Le revisioni sistematiche degli esperimenti su animali dimostrano poca utilità sull’uomo
[…] In only two of 20 reviews in which clinical utility was examined, did the authors conclude that the animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of clinical interventions, or were substantially consistent with clinical outcomes (84, 85), and one of these conclusions was contentious. Seven additional reviews also failed to clearly demonstrate utility in predicting human toxicological outcomes, such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. Consequently, animal data can be generally assumed not to be substantially useful for these purposes.
Likely causes of this inadequacy include inherent genotypic and phenotypic differences between human and non-human species, the distortion of experimental outcomes arising from experimental environments and protocols, and the poor methodological quality of many animal experiments, as was apparent in at least 11 reviews. There were no reviews in which a majority of animal experiments were of good methodological quality. Some of these problems might be minimised with concerted effort (given their widespread prevalence), but the limitations resulting from interspecies differences are likely to be technically and theoretically impossible to overcome.
Despite the fact that they have not passed and, indeed, could not pass, the formal scientific validation process required of non-animal models prior to regulatory acceptance, most animal models are incorrectly assumed to be predictive of human outcomes. The consistent application of formal validation studies to all test models is clearly warranted, regardless of their animal, non-animal, historical, contemporary or possible future status. Experimental model choices should be based on such critical scientific review,
with appropriate cons ideration also given to animal welfare, ethical, legal, economic and other relevant factors.
Likely benefits would include greater selection of models truly predictive for human outcomes, increased safety of people exposed to chemicals that have passed toxicity tests, increased efficiency during the development of human pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic interventions, and decreased wastage of animal, personnel and financial resources. In addition, the poor human clinical and toxicological utility of most animal models for which data exists, in conjunction with their generally substantial animal welfare and economic costs, justify a ban on the use of animal models lacking scientific data clearly establishing their human predictivity or utility.
Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Human Clinical and Toxicological Utility
ATLA 35, 641–659, 2007