A review of the Institute of Medicine's analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research.

We argue that the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine's 2011 report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity, are methodologically and ethically confused. We argue that a proper understanding of evolution and complexity theory in terms of the science and ethics of using chimpanzees in biomedical research would have had led the committee to recommend not merely limiting but eliminating the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. Specifically, we argue that a proper understanding of the difference between the gross level of examination of species and examinations on finer levels can shed light on important methodological and ethical inconsistencies leading to ignorance of potentially unethical practices and policies regarding the use of animals in scientific research.

Questions regarding the predictive value of one evolved complex adaptive system for a second: exemplified by the SOD1 mouse.

We surveyed the scientific literature regarding amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the SOD1 mouse model, complex adaptive systems, evolution, drug development, animal models, and philosophy of science in an attempt to analyze the SOD1 mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the context of evolved complex adaptive systems. Humans and animals are examples of evolved complex adaptive systems. It is difficult to predict the outcome from perturbations to such systems because of the characteristics of complex systems. Modeling even one complex adaptive system in order to predict outcomes from perturbations is difficult. Predicting outcomes to one evolved complex adaptive system based on outcomes from a second, especially when the perturbation occurs at higher levels of organization, is even more problematic. Using animal models to predict human outcomes to perturbations such as disease and drugs should have a very low predictive value. We present empirical evidence confirming this and suggest a theory to explain this phenomenon. We analyze the SOD1 mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in order to illustrate this position.

Systematic reviews of animal models: methodology versus epistemology.

Systematic reviews are currently favored methods of evaluating research in order to reach conclusions regarding medical practice. The need for such reviews is necessitated by the fact that no research is perfect and experts are prone to bias. By combining many studies that fulfill specific criteria, one hopes that the strengths can be multiplied and thus reliable conclusions attained. Potential flaws in this process include the assumptions that underlie the research under examination. If the assumptions, or axioms, upon which the research studies are based, are untenable either scientifically or logically, then the results must be highly suspect regardless of the otherwise high quality of the studies or the systematic reviews. We outline recent criticisms of animal-based research, namely that animal models are failing to predict human responses. It is this failure that is purportedly being corrected via systematic reviews. We then examine the assumption that animal models can predict human outcomes to perturbations such as disease or drugs, even under the best of circumstances. We examine the use of animal models in light of empirical evidence comparing human outcomes to those from animal models, complexity theory, and evolutionary biology. We conclude that even if legitimate criticisms of animal models were addressed, through standardization of protocols and systematic reviews, the animal model would still fail as a predictive modality for human response to drugs and disease. Therefore, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal-based research are poor tools for attempting to reach conclusions regarding human interventions.

Animal models and conserved processes.

BACKGROUND: The concept of conserved processes presents unique opportunities for using nonhuman animal models in biomedical research. However, the concept must be examined in the context that humans and nonhuman animals are evolved, complex, adaptive systems. Given that nonhuman animals are examples of living systems that are differently complex from humans, what does the existence of a conserved gene or process imply for inter-species extrapolation? METHODS: We surveyed the literature including philosophy of science, biological complexity, conserved processes, evolutionary biology, comparative medicine, anti-neoplastic agents, inhalational anesthetics, and drug development journals in order to determine the value of nonhuman animal models when studying conserved processes. RESULTS: Evolution through natural selection has employed components and processes both to produce the same outcomes among species but also to generate different functions and traits. Many genes and processes are conserved, but new combinations of these processes or different regulation of the genes involved in these processes have resulted in unique organisms. Further, there is a hierarchy of organization in complex living systems. At some levels, the components are simple systems that can be analyzed by mathematics or the physical sciences, while at other levels the system cannot be fully analyzed by reducing it to a physical system. The study of complex living systems must alternate between focusing on the parts and examining the intact whole organism while taking into account the connections between the two. Systems biology aims for this holism. We examined the actions of inhalational anesthetic agents and anti-neoplastic agents in order to address what the characteristics of complex living systems imply for inter-species extrapolation of traits and responses related to conserved processes. CONCLUSION: We conclude that even the presence of conserved processes is insufficient for inter-species extrapolation when the trait or response being studied is located at higher levels of organization, is in a different module, or is influenced by other modules. However, when the examination of the conserved process occurs at the same level of organization or in the same module, and hence is subject to study solely by reductionism, then extrapolation is possible.

The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling.

BACKGROUND: The requirement that animals be used in research and testing in order to protect humans was formalized in the Nuremberg Code and subsequent national and international laws, codes, and declarations. DISCUSSION: We review the history of these requirements and contrast what was known via science about animal models then with what is known now. We further analyze the predictive value of animal models when used as test subjects for human response to drugs and disease. We explore the use of animals for models in toxicity testing as an example of the problem with using animal models. SUMMARY: We conclude that the requirements for animal testing found in the Nuremberg Code were based on scientifically outdated principles, compromised by people with a vested interest in animal experimentation, serve no useful function, increase the cost of drug development, and prevent otherwise safe and efficacious drugs and therapies from being implemented.

Animal models in an age of personalized medicine.

Personalized medicine is based on intraspecies differences. It is axiomatic that small differences in genetic make-up can result in dramatic differences in response to drugs or disease. To express this in more general terms: in any given complex system, small changes in initial conditions can result in dramatically different outcomes. Despite human variability and intraspecies variation in other species, nonhuman species are still the primary model for ascertaining data for humans. We call this practice into question and conclude that human-based research should be the primary means for obtaining data about human diseases and responses to drugs.

Complex systems, evolution, and animal models.

In this paper, we respond to arguments made concerning our position regarding animal models (Shelley, 2010) by briefly examining the fact that animals (human and nonhuman) are complex systems that have different evolutionary trajectories. This historical fact has implications for using animals as predictive models for human response to drugs and disease.

Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

Animals can be used in many ways in science and scientific research. Given that society values sentient animals and that basic research is not goal oriented, the question is raised: "Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?" We explore this in the context of funding issues, outcomes from basic research, and the position of society as a whole on using sentient animals in research that is not goal oriented. We conclude that the use of sentient animals in basic research cannot be justified in light of society's priorities.

Are animal models predictive for humans?

It is one of the central aims of the philosophy of science to elucidate the meanings of scientific terms and also to think critically about their application. The focus of this essay is the scientific term predict and whether there is credible evidence that animal models, especially in toxicology and pathophysiology, can be used to predict human outcomes. Whether animals can be used to predict human response to drugs and other chemicals is apparently a contentious issue. However, when one empirically analyzes animal models using scientific tools they fall far short of being able to predict human responses. This is not surprising considering what we have learned from fields such evolutionary and developmental biology, gene regulation and expression, epigenetics, complexity theory, and comparative genomics.

Are animals necessary in 2002? Reply to Dr Michael Festing's book review of Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: the Human Cost of Experiments on Animals.

We appreciate this opportunity to defend the concepts we expressed in 2000, in Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. Enthusiastic critiques such as Dr Michael Festing's are extremely valuable, if those within and without the field of science are finally to understand, choose among, and embrace viable research modalities that are meant to result in cures and treatments for human disease. Criticisms also help to clarify misunderstandings. We hope this essay will shed light on the debate.