I'm new to the forum, and I apologize if this topic has been brought up way too much.

Anyway, I am writing a research paper, and I need the accuracy rate of animal experimentation as well as a source to back that information up. Can anyone help me with that one, please?

 

Thanks in advance!

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?

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).

I think the answer to your question is, it depends. Would you like a reference for that? The thing is, we have all sorts of animal testing. We can test on cultured cells now, which would detect cell-level toxicity but not body-wide toxicity. We can test on various animals, from fruit flies to primates, all of which will affect the accuracy of the test, in addition to the drug's actual function. I suppose someone would have added up a system-wide average over all species testing is done on. Alternately, you could restrict your question to one species in particular, such as mice.

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.

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.