Latest News
Newsletter Autumn 2008 available now
Read our latest newsletter here (pdf)
BBC admits bias but defends lies
‘See no facts, hear no facts, speak no facts.’
|
15 October 2008: BBC Trust (the BBC's watchdog) upholds BBC ruling that animal testing documentary 'Monkeys, Rats and Me' was unbalanced. Yet they still deny the programme was inaccurate, ignoring conclusive evidence to the contrary.
Read more here
See our original complaints, the BBC's original response, our appeal and the BBC's ruling, the programme maker's comments and Professor Page's letter
Mouse models for neurological disease "nearly useless"
Read more here
Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions toward human healthcare
New study published in Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 2008; 3(2): 89-96
In 20 published systematic reviews, animal models demonstrated significant potential to contribute toward the development of clinical interventions in only two cases, one of which was contentious. Seven additional reviews failed to demonstrate utility in reliably predicting human toxicological outcomes such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. Results in animal models were frequently equivocal, or inconsistent with human outcomes. Consequently, animal data may not generally be considered useful for these purposes.
Read the paper here
Studies in dogs and monkeys no more informative than tossing a coin
The common claim that 'virtually every medical achievement of the last century has benefitted to some extent from animal research' is an outrageous abuse of the trust placed by the public in our most prestigious academic institutions, according to science journalist Robert Matthews: see BBC Focus Magazine article (February 2008)
Robert Matthews has re-analysed the data from a much quoted published paper assessing the predictivity of dogs and monkeys for the toxicity of anti-cancer drugs and found that the predictive values quoted were calculated incorrectly. When calculated correctly, "the data provide no statistically credible evidence that these animal models contribute any predictive value, either separately or in combination." This stunning piece of work is published in the February issue of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, for which a subscription is required to view the article.
Robert Matthews has also published an article (subscription required) in the 16 February issue of New Scientist, in which he observes: "Few [studies] provide enough data to allow the value of animal studies to be worked out; those that do suggest they are no more informative than tossing a coin."
ASA rejects claim by Pro-Test that animal testing has been scientifically evaluated
See Pro-Test complaint and ASA adjudication
See article in Daily Express
"Tests on mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs to stop harmful chemicals reaching humans were once a necessary evil. But such checks now seem embarrassingly old-fashioned..."
Read article in Chemistry World, August 2007
BBC apologises for unbalanced animal testing documentary ‘Monkeys, Rats and Me’
See our complaints and the BBC's response
Debate at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), January 16th 2007: Animal Testing: Necessary Cruelty or Cruelly Unnecessary?
YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE SPEAKERS HERE:
 Iain Simpson, Press Officer, Pro-Test Campaign 
Dr. Margaret Clotworthy, Safer Medicines Trust
Professor John Stein, Oxford University
Kathy Archibald, Safer Medicines Trust
Thanks to Aled Fisher, Environment and Ethics Officer, LSE Students' Union, for organising and chairing the debate.
Europeans for Medical Progress complains to BBC regarding BBC2 programme ‘Monkeys, Rats and Me’.
See our complaints here.
EDM 92 'ANIMAL TESTING OF DRUGS'
A phenomenal 250 MPs - a clear majority of those eligible to do so - signed Early Day Motion 92:
"That this House, in common with Europeans for Medical Progress, expresses its concerns regarding the safeguarding of public health through data obtained from laboratory animals, particularly in light of large numbers of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions that were not predicted by animal studies; is concerned that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments, and has no plans to do so; and, in common with 83 per cent of general practitioners in a recent survey, calls upon the Government to facilitate an independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research."
You can view the signatories here. You can
find the name of your MP here.
This gives the Government a very clear signal that they are in a minority in their reluctance to sanction the evaluation of animal tests that the overwhelming majority of doctors, politicians and the public recognise is necessary. Such a high level of parliamentary endorsement will help us to exert pressure on the Government to start listening to the rational, scientific case for a comparison of animal tests with a battery of state-of-the-art methods of predicting drug safety. These include microdosing, human DNA chips, virtual human organs and tests involving human tissue - which would have predicted the devastating effects of both Vioxx and the Northwick Park drug and could have averted both disasters.
Many thanks to everyone who encouraged their MP to sign in support of such a momentous evaluation. Despite such impressive support, our work is not over yet as the Government still remains to be convinced. Please help us in our efforts to convince them:
To add your support to the call for an independent scientific evaluation of animal experimentation - click here
To print off a petition to gather more support for an independent scientific evaluation of animal experimentation - click here
To read a brief summary of the compelling case for an evaluation - click here
Vivisection is not a reliable means of testing human drugs, writes Kathy Archibald
in the Oxford Student Newspaper
Friday June 9th, 2006
Press release 5th June 2006: New booklet proclaiming the benefits of primate research makes insupportable claims
Read more
Europeans for Medical Progress wins university debate with Pro-Test
Science director of EMP, Dr Jarrod Bailey debated Kristina Cook of Pro-Test
in front of an audience of over 100 people at Sheffield University Debating
Society on May 17th. Dr Bailey presented overwhelming evidence of harm
resulting from animal experimentation, as well as outlining the superior
methods available today. Just as in a debate between Dr Bailey and Iain Simpson in the House of Commons on March 15th, Pro-Test provided no evidence to support their
claims that animal experiments are crucial to medical progress, preferring
to continue their attempts to discredit those who disagree with them.
However, the audience was not convinced and the motion was carried that:
"This house believes that animal testing is detrimental to human health and
should be abolished."
It's time to test the testers
Over-reliance on the accuracy of animal testing is dangerously misleading and puts human life at risk, writes Kathy Archibald
Friday May 5, 2006
New paper on primate research published in
the December issue of the journal Biogenic Amines:
Non-human
primates in medical research and drug development:
a critical review
Biogenic Amines, Vol. 19, No. 4-6, pp. 235-255
(2005) Copies available
from EMP for £3,
including p&p
VSP 2005. Also available online - www.vsppub.com
There is much current debate surrounding the
use of non-human primates (NHPs) in medical research
and drug development. This review, stimulated
by calls for evidence from UK-based inquiries
into NHP research, takes a critical view in order
to provide some important balance against papers
supporting NHP research and calling for it to
be expanded. We show that there is a paucity
of evidence to demonstrate the positive contribution
or successful translation of NHP research to
human medicine, that there is a great deal of
often overlooked data showing NHP research to
be irrelevant, unnecessary, even hazardous to
human health and to have little or no predictive
value or application to human medicine. We briefly
discuss the reasons why this may be so, reflect
upon the consequences for future medical progress
and, on the basis of our findings, suggest a
more scientifically robust and promising way
forward.
For the benefit of human medical progress, it
is surely time for objectivity, transparency
and honesty in the assessment of NHP models and
their contribution to medical science. Only by
ensuring this can we be confident that we are
utilizing scientific technology to the full,
performing the best translational research possible,
and making real progress towards the relief of
human suffering and disease. Read more (pdf)
Animal tests yield misleading results: Education
and debate in BMJ USA
Are animal experiments really predictive of
human carcinogenicity? Analysis and comment by
Andrew Knight, Jarrod Bailey and Jonathan Balcombe,
with rebuttal by William H Farland, Bruce Rodan
and Peter Preuss, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Read more...
Fifth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal
Use in the Life Sciences
At the end of August, almost 1000 people attended
the 'Fifth World Congress on Alternatives and
Animal Use in the Life Sciences' in Berlin, the
majority of whom were scientists. The presentation
of a study invalidating animal-based testing
of potential human carcinogens, co-authored by
our Science Director Dr Jarrod Bailey, won one
of only two conference prizes for its scientific
merit, beating off competition from 350 others.
Dr Bailey was also invited to present his study
on the futility of animal testing for substances
that can cause birth defects, which was very
well received.
Read more...
PRESS RELEASE - WEDNESDAY
24th AUGUST 2005
ANIMAL TESTING - MPs,
GPs and scientists demand evaluation
The RDS'
claims about the medical value of
animal experimentation are unsubstantiated
by scientific evidence. Europeans for
Medical Progress has amassed overwhelming evidence,
from the scientific literature, of harm to
humans caused by reliance on misleading animal
tests.
Read more...
Europeans for Medical Progress submits evidence
to primate study
Europeans for Medical Progress, together with
Antidote-Europe, has submitted evidence to a
working group set up by The Academy of Medical
Sciences, the Royal Society, the Medical Research
Council and the Wellcome Trust to examine the
recent, current and future scientific basis for
biological and medical research involving non-human
primates. As we state in our submission, we welcome
this inquiry, though with reservations that it
is being overseen by four organisations which
actively promote and defend NHP research.
Read our submission here (pdf)
We have also submitted comments to the Home
Office on the Animal Procedures Committee Report
on the use of non-human primates under the Animal
(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Read our submission here (pdf)
Drug and Chemical Tests Using Animals Fail
to Predict Birth Defect Risk Half the Time
Pregnant women may unknowingly be putting their
unborn children at risk of birth defects by taking
over-the-counter medications and prescription
drugs, and using common household chemicals,
according to a new study published in the May
issue of the research journal, Biogenic Amines.
Read more here...
Animal testing - science or
fiction?
Given that prescription medicines
are the fourth biggest killer in the western
world, why hasn't the effectiveness of drug safety
testing on animals been subjected to greater
scrutiny?
4 page article by Europeans
for Medical Progress in the May issue of the
Ecologist, available
here.
ANIMAL TESTING - MPs, GPs and scientists demand
evaluation
Animal tests were made a legal requirement
following the Thalidomide tragedy forty years
ago, in the hope of preventing another such disaster.
But have they lived up to their promise? Recently
withdrawn arthritis drug Vioxx was safe and even
beneficial to animal's hearts but caused as many
as 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in people
- the biggest drug catastrophe in history.[1]
Shockingly, adverse reactions to prescription
medicines (all tested for safety on animals)
are now the fourth leading cause of death in
the western world: killing over 10,000 people
a year in the UK and costing the NHS £466
million.[2] New human-based safety tests before
and during clinical trials (such as microdosing)
could prevent many of these deaths.
Read more here...
Doctors don't trust animal experiments
We commissioned a survey of 500 GPs opinions
on animal experimentation -
Read the full media release |
Study casts doubt on efficacy of chimpanzee research 
