INTRODUCTION

The charity was formed with help from researchers to address uncertainties about the value of animal research and the lack of systematic evidence.

SABRE originated out of a dissatisfaction with the polarised positions in the debate about animal research, which currently lacks quality and objectivity. We found that while one side of the debate is controlled by the animal research community making generalised and unsupported claims about the value of animal research, the opposing side is occupied by anti-vivisectionists who make equally insupportable claims that animal research is of no value.

Our pivotal position evolved out of this scenario and the charity was formed with the intention to add quality and insight to the debate and to call for improvements in policy.

We found that the standards for conducting and evaluating animal research are much lower than those set for clinical research. While this situation is allowed to continue patients and research volunteers may be put at risk, funding wasted and better treatments not sought.

We are calling for improvements in the experimental design of animal studies and in the way animal research is evaluated in order to reduce as much bias as possible from the research. All animal studies, including primary studies, can and should be evaluated using the best available research methodologies.

The research community considers the systematic review to be the most appropriate way of evaluating animal research.

We are calling for large-scale programmes of systematic reviews of all animal studies to be conducted in order that the value of animal research to human medicine can be determined. The publication of the results of such reviews will assist the transparency and accountability of animal research and improve safety and efficacy in the translation of animal experiments to human research.

Systematic reviews of animal studies are essential if:

•the value of animal research to human health is to be determined

•research volunteers and patients are to be protected from unsound research

•shareholders are to escape unprofitable investments

•expensive laboratory animal research that is unproductive is to be avoided

'At present, there is a relatively limited number of useful systematic reviews and meta-reviews that address the question of the scientific validity of animal experiments and tests. In principle, it would therefore be desirable to undertake further systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate more fully the predictability and transferability of animal models (paragraph 10.39). We recommend that the Home Office in collaboration with major funders of research such as the Wellcome Trust, the MRC, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), animal protection groups and industry associations such as the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) should consider ways of funding and carrying out these reviews.' Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Ethics of Research Involving Animals, Report, 2005

'Recommendation 4. As part of their ongoing programmes to assess the outcomes of their research, the major funding organisations should undertake a systematic review of the outcome of all their research using non-human primates supported over the last decade.' The use of non-human primates in research: a working group report chaired by Sir David Weatherall, 2006

"Systematic reviews are powerful studies used to sum up evidence on any topic."  Tom Jefferson - researcher - Cochrane Collaboration.

"There is certainly a need to develop new medicines for conditions where current treatment is inadequate but, in clinical trials, the wellbeing of volunteers must always come first." Professor Gordon Duff