speed & safety in drug discovery technologies conference

Latest News

Safer Medicines Trust article published in Scientists for Global Responsibility newsletter:

Could we have safer medicines through non-animal testing?
The use of animals in medical research is an emotionally charged topic, but the scientific rationale behind their use is rarely questioned. Dr Margaret Clotworthy from Safer Medicines Trust describes an initiative doing just that.

You can read the article here

Safer Medicines Campaign featured in Lifescape Magazine, April/May 2009

Article reproduced here with kind permission of Lifescape Magazine.

Safer Medicines Campaign featured on BBC1 Inside Out programme, 25 February

Dr Margaret Clotworthy is interviewed during a feature on the increase in animal experimentation in the UK. Her contribution starts half way through the 9 minute clip available here.

Our commentary on the use of primates in research published in important scientifc journal

In January, the European Commission published its opinion on the matter, which was disturbingly one-sided and deeply flawed - as was their consultation process: see here

We are grateful to Regulatory Affairs Journal Pharma for allowing us to reproduce the article on our website.

Human alternatives to animal testing should be investigated, MPs say

See article in the Telegraph, 26th January

Safety of Medicines (Evaluation) Bill and Early Day Motion 569 launched

A cross-party group of MPs has launched this important new Bill and an EDM to support it.

Please help! See how here

Newsletter Spring 2009 available now

Read our latest newsletter here (pdf)

Major and influential coverage in scientific journals

A 3-page report on our Royal Society conference by Dr Nirmala Bhogal, Scientific Director of FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) has been published in the February issue of Alternatives to Laboratory Animals.

A 4-page interview: Are Humans the Best Model for Human Medicines? plus an Editorial: Is the End in Sight for Animal Trials? have been published in the February issue of Regulatory Affairs Journal Pharma, which is read by regulators worldwide.

We are very grateful to both journals for allowing us to reproduce the articles on our website.

Safer Medicines Trust hosts international conference at the Royal Society: Speed & Safety in Drug Discovery

The theme was the benefits that a focus on human, rather than animal biology can bring to drug discovery and development. The day was a tremendous success, with comments from delegates including: "A conference which was long overdue!" and from speakers: "Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate and speak at this wonderful conference."

View and listen to the presentations here

Thalidomide - why animal tests failed to reveal the danger

50 years after the thalidomide tragedy, a new paper was published on 1st December laying the blame squarely on animal testing:

"The rapid and fatal approval of thalidomide at that time ultimately was a consequence of the sole use of thalidomide-insensitive species in animal toxicity tests."

See ScienceDaily for the full story and a link to the original article.

In an excellent article in the National in Abu Dhabi, also published on 1st December, science journalist Robert Matthews explains why animal tests have been failing to protect people since thalidomide; and discusses our conference at the Royal Society.

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.

Mouse models for neurological disease "nearly useless"

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."

<<<Previous

Next>>>