Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 389–394 | Cite as

Letter to the Editor

  • Ray Greek

Dear Editor,

The April 2014 issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics [1] presented eight essays regarding the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research. While I appreciate the essays concerning contemporary research—which were well written and offered new thinking from the fields of ethics and ethology—I believe the journal, via the topics and the authors chosen, failed to communicate the most important fact regarding the current science pertinent to the use of nonhuman animals in research.

The foundational reason for using chimpanzees and other animals in research is their predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. This was alluded to by several of the authors when they discussed the necessityof using nonhuman animals. For example, Smith writes: “A common assumption in the selection of nonhuman animal subjects for research and the approval of research is that, if the risks of a procedure are too great for humans, and if there is a so-called scientific...


Animal Species Human Response Amyloid Plaque Basic Science Research Human Clinical Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Beauchamp, T, H.R. Ferdowsian, and J.P. Gluck. 2014. Rethinking the ethics of research involving nonhuman animals. Special issue. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 38(2): 91–185.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Choe Smith, C.U. 2014. Confronting ethical permissibility in animal research: Rejecting a common assumption and extending a principle of justice. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35(2): 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Platt, J.R. 1964. Strong inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science 146(3642): 347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    LaFollette, H., and N. Shanks. 1996. Brute science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greek, R., and N. Shanks. 2009. FAQs about the use of animals in science: A handbook for the scientifically perplexed. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greek, R., and N. Shanks. 2011. Complex systems, evolution, and animal models. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42(4): 542–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greek, R., N. Shanks, and M.J. Rice. 2011. The history and implications of testing thalidomide on animals. The Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law 11. Accessed August 5, 2014.
  8. 8.
    Shanks, N., and R. Greek. 2008. Experimental use of nonhuman primates is not a simple problem. Nature Medicine 14(10): 807–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shanks, N., and R. Greek. 2009. Animal models in light of evolution. Boca Raton: Brown Walker.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shanks, N., R. Greek, and J. Greek. 2009. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 4: 2. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-4-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greek, R. 2012. Animal models and the development of an HIV vaccine. Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research S8: 001. doi: 10.4172/2155-6113.S8-001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greek, R. 2012. Review of Zoobiquity: What animals can teach us about health and the science of healing, by B. Natterson-Horowitz and K. Bowers. Animals 2(4): 559–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greek, R., A. Menache, and M.J. Rice. 2012. Animal models in an age of personalized medicine. Personalized Medicine 9(1): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greek, R., A. Pippus, and L.A. Hansen. 2012. The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling. BMC Medical Ethics 13: 16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greek, R., and M.J. Rice. 2012. Animal models and conserved processes. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 9: 40. doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-9-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greek, R. 2013. Animal models of cancer in light of evolutionary biology and complexity science. In The research and biology of cancer. Hong Kong: iConcept Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greek, R. 2013. Animal models in drug development. In New insights into toxicity and drug testing, ed. Sivakumar Gowder, 124–152. Manhattan: InTech.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greek, R., and L.A. Hansen. 2013. The strengths and limits of animal models as illustrated by the discovery and development of antibacterials. Biological Systems 2: 2. doi: 10.4172/BSO.1000109.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Greek, R., and L.A. Hansen. 2013. Questions regarding the predictive value of one evolved complex adaptive system for a second: Exemplified by the SOD1 mouse. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 113: 231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greek, R., and A. Menache. 2013. Systematic reviews of animal models: Methodology versus epistemology. International Journal of Medical Sciences 10: 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones, R.C., and R. Greek. 2013. A review of the Institute of Medicine’s analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research. Science and Engineering Ethics 20: 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Curry, S.H. 2003. Why have so many drugs with stellar results in laboratory stroke models failed in clinical trials? A theory based on allometric relationships. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 993: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Macleod, M. 2004. Systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental stroke. International Journal of Neuroprotection and Neuroregeneration 1: 9–12.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaste, M. 2005. Use of animal models has not contributed to development of acute stroke therapies: Pro. Stroke 36(10): 2323–2324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Collins, V.E., M.R. Macleod, G.A. Donnan, L.L. Horky, B.H. van der Worp, and D.W. Howells. 2006. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Annals of Neurology 59(3): 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sena, E., H.B. van der Worp, D. Howells, and M. Macleod. 2007. How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends in Neurosciences 30(9): 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ginsberg, M.D. 2008. Neuroprotection for ischemic stroke: Past, present and future. Neuropharmacology 55(3): 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feuerstein, G.Z., and J. Chavez. 2009. Translational medicine for stroke drug discovery: The pharmaceutical industry perspective. Stroke 40: S121–S125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sena, E.S., H.B. van der Worp, P.M.W. Bath, D.W. Howells, and M.R. Macleod. 2010. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biology 8(3): e1000344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Collins, V.E., M.R. Macleod, S.F. Cox, L. van Raay, E. Aleksoska, G.A. Donnan, and D.W. Howells. 2011. Preclinical drug evaluation for combination therapy in acute stroke using systematic review, meta-analysis, and subsequent experimental testing. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 31(3): 962–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Editorial. 2007. Cold shower for AIDS vaccines. Nature Medicine 13(12):1389–1390.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Buchbinder, S.P., D.V. Mehrotra, A. Duerr, et al. 2008. Efficacy assessment of a cell-mediated immunity HIV-1 vaccine (the step study): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, test-of-concept trial. Lancet 372: 1881–1893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gamble, L.J., and Q.L. Matthews. 2010. Current progress in the development of a prophylactic vaccine for HIV-1. Drug Design, Development and Therapy 5(9–26): 33.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chu, B.C., C.C. Fan, and S.B. Howell. 1981. Activity of free and carrier-bound methotrexate against transport-deficient and high dihydrofolate dehydrogenase-containing methotrexate-resistant L1210 cells. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 66: 121–124.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Greenstein, J.P. 1954. Biochemistry of cancer, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Janofsky, M. 1993. On cigarettes, health and lawyers. New York Times, December 6. Accessed April 17, 2014.
  37. 37.
    Lindsay, M.A. 2005. Finding new drug targets in the 21st century. Drug Discovery Today 10: 1683–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Northrup, E. 1957. Science looks at smoking: A new inquiry into the effects of smoking on your health. New York: Coward-McCann.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Utidjian, M. 1988. The interaction between epidemiology and animal studies in industrial toxicology. In Perspectives in basic and applied toxicology, ed. B. Ballantyne, 309–329. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gardner, Leroy U. 1938. Etiology of pneumoconiosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 111: 1925–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gross, P. 1977. The biologic response to inhaled mineral fibers: Facts and fancies. Reviews on Environmental Health 2(3): 167–175.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Muhle, H., and F. Pott. 2000. Asbestos as reference material for fibre-induced cancer. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 73: S53–S59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Oberdorster, G. 1996. Evaluation and use of animal models to assess mechanisms of fibre carcinogenicity. IARC Scientific 140: 107–125.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Smith, W.E., L. Miller, R.E. Elsasser, and D.D. Hubert. 1965. Tests for carcinogenicity of asbestos. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 132(1): 456–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wagner, J.C. 1963. Asbestosis in experimental animals. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 20: 1–12.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wagner, J.C., G. Berry, J.W. Skidmore, and V. Timbrell. 1974. The effects of the inhalation of asbestos in rats. British Journal of Cancer 29(3): 252–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
    Heywood, R. 1981. Target organ toxicity. Toxicology Letters 8(6): 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eason, C.T., F.W. Bonner, and D.V. Parke. 1990. The importance of pharmacokinetic and receptor studies in drug safety evaluation. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 11(3): 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lin, J.H. 1995. Species similarities and differences in pharmacokinetics. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 23(10): 1008–1021.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Li, A.P. 2004. Accurate prediction of human drug toxicity: A major challenge in drug development. Chemico-Biological Interactions 150: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Geerts, H. 2009. Of mice and men: Bridging the translational disconnect in CNS drug discovery. CNS Drugs 23(11): 915–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Collins, F.S. 2011. Reengineering translational science: The time is right. Science Translational Medicine 3(90):90cm17. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002747.
  54. 54.
    Giri, S., and A. Bader. 2011. Foundation review: Improved preclinical safety assessment using micro-BAL devices: The potential impact on human discovery and drug attrition. Drug Discovery Today 16: 382–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    van Meer, P.J.K., M. Kooijman, C.C. Gispen-de Wied, E.H.M. Moors, and H. Schellekens. 2012. The ability of animal studies to detect serious post marketing adverse events is limited. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 64(3): 345–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Greek, R., and J. Greek. 2010. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 5: 14. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-5-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Begley, S. 2003. Physician-researchers needed to get cures out of rat’s cage. Wall Street Journal, April 25.
  58. 58.
    Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D.G., E. Ntzani, and J.P. Ioannidis. 2003. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. American Journal of Medicine 114(6): 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Crowley Jr., W.F. 2003. Translation of basic research into useful treatments: How often does it occur? American Journal of Medicine 114(6): 503–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Editorial. 2010. Hope in translation. Nature 467(7315):499.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Editorial. 2012. Must try harder. Nature 483(7391):509.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hackam, D.G., and D.A. Redelmeier. 2006. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. Journal of the American Medical Association 296(14): 1731–1732.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Johnston, S.C. 2006. Translation: Case study in failure. Annals of Neurology 59(3): 447–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Leslie, M. 2010. Biomedical research: Immunology uncaged. Science 327(5973): 1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mankoff, S.P., C. Brander, S. Ferrone, and F.M. Marincola. 2004. Lost in translation: Obstacles to translational medicine. Journal of Translational Medicine 2: 14. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-2-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Marincola, F.M. 2003. Translational medicine: A two-way road. Journal of Translational Medicine 1: 1. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-1-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Americans for Medical AdvancementGoletaUSA

Personalised recommendations