ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Readers respond

More feedback from our readers about a columnist?s cry to abandon the ?three Rs? in animal research

Ray Greek, Andrew N. Rowan, Chuck Kristensen, Rodger D. Curren, Alan M. Goldberg, Vicky Robinson, Baroness Perry, Stuart Derbyshire
More on animal research's three Rs It is indeed time to abandon the "three Rs,"-- reduction, refinement, and replacement -- but not for the reasons Stuart Derbyshire outlines. The three Rs assume that animals can be used as causal analogical models, but this assumption is flawed. A systematic review of the use of calcium channel blockers for stroke and the role animal-based research played revealed that said research made no contribution to the decision to proceed with clinical use of the drugs. Similar reviews on fluid resuscitation, treatments for stroke and other diseases have concluded essentially the same; that animal studies were either misleading or provided little data of ultimate interest for proceeding to clinical trials. Ray Greek President, Americans for Medical Advancement Los Angeles DrRayGreek@aol.comStuart Derbyshire asserts that we are going to need more animals in the future, not less. The data does not support this claim....
slowedAndrew N. Rowanarowan@erols.comChuck Kristensen chuck@spiderpharm.comRodger D. Currenrcurren@iivs.orgAlan M. Goldbergchoward@jhsph.eduVicky Robinsonvicky.robinson@nc3rs.org.ukwww.nuffieldbioethics.orgBaroness Perry of Southwarkbioethics@nuffieldbioethics.orgStuart Derbyshire responds: The Scientisthttp://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/23/1/StrokePM_ID: 11588338British Medical JournalPM_ID: 14988196The State of the Animals 2001http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/MARK_State_of_Animals_Ch_07.pdf

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT