Editing Animal testing (section)

=== Scientific criticism ===
[[Systematic review]]s have pointed out that animal testing often fails to accurately mirror outcomes in humans.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Knight|first=Andrew|date=May 2008|title=Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions toward human healthcare|journal=Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials|volume=3|issue=2|pages=89–96|doi=10.2174/157488708784223844|issn=1574-8871|pmid=18474018}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Greek|first1=Ray|last2=Menache|first2=Andre|date=2013-01-11|title=Systematic Reviews of Animal Models: Methodology versus Epistemology|journal=International Journal of Medical Sciences|volume=10|issue=3|pages=206–21|doi=10.7150/ijms.5529|issn=1449-1907|pmc=3558708|pmid=23372426}}</ref> For instance, a 2013 review noted that some 100 vaccines have been shown to prevent HIV in animals, yet none of them have worked on humans.<ref name=":0" /> Effects seen in animals may not be replicated in humans, and vice versa. Many [[corticosteroid]]s cause birth defects in animals, but not in humans. Conversely, [[thalidomide]] causes serious birth defects in humans, but not in some animals such as mice (however, it does cause birth defects in rabbits).<ref name=":1">{{cite journal|last=Bracken|first=Michael B|date=2009-03-01|title=Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure|journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine|volume=102|issue=3|pages=120–22|doi=10.1258/jrsm.2008.08k033|issn=0141-0768|pmc=2746847|pmid=19297654}}</ref> A 2004 paper concluded that much animal research is wasted because systemic reviews are not used, and due to poor methodology.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pound|first1=Pandora|last2=Ebrahim|first2=Shah|last3=Sandercock|first3=Peter|last4=Bracken|first4=Michael B|last5=Roberts|first5=Ian|date=2004-02-28|title=Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?|journal=BMJ: British Medical Journal|volume=328|issue=7438|pages=514–17|issn=0959-8138|pmid=14988196|pmc=351856|doi=10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514}}</ref> A 2006 review found multiple studies where there were promising results for new drugs in animals, but human clinical studies did not show the same results. The researchers suggested that this might be due to researcher bias, or simply because animal models do not accurately reflect human biology.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Perel|first1=Pablo|last2=Roberts|first2=Ian|last3=Sena|first3=Emily|last4=Wheble|first4=Philipa|last5=Briscoe|first5=Catherine|last6=Sandercock|first6=Peter|last7=Macleod|first7=Malcolm|last8=Mignini|first8=Luciano E.|last9=Jayaram|first9=Pradeep|last10=Khan|first10=Khalid S.|date=2007-01-25|title=Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review|journal=BMJ|volume=334|issue=7586|pages=197|doi=10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BE|issn=0959-8138|pmc=1781970|pmid=17175568}}</ref> Lack of meta-reviews may be partially to blame.<ref name=":1"/> Poor methodology is an issue in many studies. A 2009 review noted that many animal experiments did not use [[blinded experiment]]s, a key element of many scientific studies in which researchers are not told about the part of the study they are working on to reduce bias.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Schulz|first1=Kenneth F.|last2=Chalmers|first2=Iain|last3=Altman|first3=Douglas G.|date=2002-02-05|title=The Landscape and Lexicon of Blinding in Randomized Trials|journal=Annals of Internal Medicine|volume=136|issue=3|pages=254–59|doi=10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00022|pmid=11827510|s2cid=34932997|issn=0003-4819}}</ref> A 2021 paper found, in a sample of Open Access Alzheimer Disease studies, that if the authors omit from the title that the experiment was performed in mice, the News Headline follow suit, and that also the Twitter repercussion is higher.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Triunfol|first1=Marcia|last2=Gouveia|first2=Fabio C.|date=2021-06-15|editor-last=Bero|editor-first=Lisa|title=What's not in the news headlines or titles of Alzheimer disease articles? #InMice|journal=PLOS Biology|language=en|volume=19|issue=6|pages=e3001260|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001260|pmid=34129637|pmc=8205157|issn=1545-7885|doi-access=free}}</ref>