Shoddy Preclinical Data Used in Clinical Trial Proposals

Applications for Phase 1 and 2 human studies in Germany frequently lack sufficient information about an intervention’s efficacy in animal experiments, according to a new study.

Written byKerry Grens
| 1 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share

ISTOCK, FOTOGRAFIXXRecent applications for human clinical trials submitted to ethical review boards in Germany are sorely lacking in preclinical evidence from high-quality animal experiments on the proposed treatment. According to a study published today (April 5) in PLOS Biology, more than 95 percent of the preclinical work cited by 109 clinical trial proposals lacked the hallmarks of best practices, such as randomization or blinding.

“This is incredibly alarming,” Shai Silberberg, director of research quality at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland, tells Science. The study “shows that decision-makers for ethics related to clinical trials don’t get the information they really need to evaluate those preclinical trials.”

Nevertheless, the studies were approved. The authors examined clinical trials submitted to and approved by institutional review boards at three German biomedical institutions between 2010 and 2016. These 109 proposals included 708 preclinical efficacy studies.

The research team found that the vast majority of the preclinical work—89 percent—was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, 82 percent reported only positive findings.

“With a median group size of 8 animals, these studies had limited ability to measure treatment effects ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
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? Login Here

Related Topics

Meet the Author

  • kerry grens

    Kerry served as The Scientist’s news director until 2021. Before joining The Scientist in 2013, she was a stringer for Reuters Health, the senior health and science reporter at WHYY in Philadelphia, and the health and science reporter at New Hampshire Public Radio. Kerry got her start in journalism as a AAAS Mass Media fellow at KUNC in Colorado. She has a master’s in biological sciences from Stanford University and a biology degree from Loyola University Chicago.

    View Full Profile
Share
July Digest 2025
July 2025, Issue 1

What Causes an Earworm?

Memory-enhancing neural networks may also drive involuntary musical loops in the brain.

View this Issue
Explore synthetic DNA’s many applications in cancer research

Weaving the Fabric of Cancer Research with Synthetic DNA

Twist Bio 
Illustrated plasmids in bright fluorescent colors

Enhancing Elution of Plasmid DNA

cytiva logo
An illustration of green lentiviral particles.

Maximizing Lentivirus Recovery

cytiva logo
Explore new strategies for improving plasmid DNA manufacturing workflows.

Overcoming Obstacles in Plasmid DNA Manufacturing

cytiva logo

Products

shiftbioscience

Shift Bioscience proposes improved ranking system for virtual cell models to accelerate gene target discovery

brandtechscientific-logo

BRANDTECH Scientific Launches New Website for VACUU·LAN® Lab Vacuum Systems

The Scientist Placeholder Image

Waters Enhances Alliance iS HPLC System Software, Setting a New Standard for End-to-End Traceability and Data Integrity 

The Scientist Placeholder Image

Agilent Unveils the Next Generation in LC-Mass Detection: The InfinityLab Pro iQ Series