# Talk:Animal testing

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alissapalushi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lindsph.
 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moore4jp (article contribs).

I'd like to supplement this article with a list of Systematic Reviews (SR's) and Meta-Studies (MS's). Unfortunately the few that are mentioned do not seem to be accurately represented (e.g. this article states: 'such studies can be difficult to interpret, and it is argued that they are not always comparable to human diseases' but the paper cited for this claim actually states: 'Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews'). Every SR and MS I could find is critical of animal testing, so the proposed article is titled 'Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views'. I believe this would contribute to a more informed and robust account of animal testing. If there are objections based on the negative accounts of the SR's and MS's, then if anyone can supply links to publicly verifiable material that is supportive, then those can be included too (I could not find any). Carlduff (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, Can you link 3-5 of the best studies, and the conclusion you'd like to draw from them? As I understand it, you'd like to note that animal testing is flawed as a research practice? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
CaptainEek The problem is "best" studies according to whom? That could result in accusations of cherry picking and synthesising and such. All SR's and MS's I have found are very critical of animal testing, so I simply believe it would make for a more rounded and robust article to acknowledge them, and accurately (hence just listing quotes to avoid accusations of bias). Again, if there are MS's and SR's out there that are supportive, then I would love to know about them. Otherwise, it would also be helpful to accurately reflect the papers that are referenced, such as the one I already mentioned, above. Carlduff (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Carlduff, My metric for best here would be the studies which specifically review the use of animal testing, and are  SR/MR. Said reviews should note in them their conclusions on animal testing, which we could then report. Again, using lists of quotes is not our style. We present information using prose whenever possible. That does allow us to summarize what sources are saying. Based on [1], [2], and [3] I might construct the following sentence Systemic reviews have pointed out that animal testing often fails to accurately mirror outcomes in humans. 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. I think I will add this and start a section, which could be expanded upon. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
CaptainEek I think I see where you are going. OK, I believe the "best" (general) articles are:
The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice… animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods… of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated [through animal experiments], only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials [a 99.9% failure rate].
Systematic review and meta-analysis have provided empirical evidence that too many preclinical [i.e. animal] experiments lack methodological rigor, and this leads to inflated treatment effects. There is of course no guarantee that improvements in the validity of preclinical animal studies and reduced publication bias will improve the translational hit of interventions from bench to bedside.
...41% of the studies did not describe the age of their animal model... A general observation in our risk of bias assessment was that the majority of the included studies did not provide sufficient information to assess the risk of bias. The studies did not adequately describe details regarding allocation of animals to the experimental groups, adjustments for baseline differences, concealment of allocation, randomization, blinding and addressing incomplete outcome data.
These deficiencies in the reporting of animal study design, which are clearly widespread, raise the concern that the reviewers of these studies could not adequately identify potential limitations in the experimental design and/or data analysis, limiting the benefit of the findings...Numerous publications have called attention to the lack of transparency in reporting, yet studies in the life sciences in general, and in animals in particular, still often lack adequate reporting on the design, conduct and analysis of the experiments.
Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence…However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation.