Anthropologist

Depends is a good answer until you make your question much more specific. You could also consider the efficacy of the drugs. For example, some drugs might well be 'safe' as determined by both animal and human studies. But while the drug worked in the animals as expected, perhaps the experimental drug doesn't treat the disease (at least as well as current drugs) in humans as the researchers had hoped.

 

This would be a conclusion that the animal studies were inaccurate. Despite the fact the drug is safe for both humans and animals, it only treated the disease in the animals and did not treat the disease in humans.

Ah, good point. Thanks.

I suppose I should just get the accuracy rates for the species I'm using as examples. That should work out better.

What do you mean by accuracy rate? Are you looking for how often something safe in animals turns out to be unsafe in humans, or something to that effect?

Oh, I didn't even think about specifying.

Um... Yeah, pretty much. Basically just how often it turns out to be right (or wrong).