Animal testing may not be as beneficial to humans as previously thought.

After analyzing a number of scientific reports, researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have concluded that much of the animal research conducted to date may be of little use in fighting human diseases, as is often claimed.

Publishing their work in the British Medical Journal, the scientists' controversial article includes findings that indicate that much of the research that involves animal testing is poorly conducted, and is poorly evaluated as well.

The scientists went on to suggest that a systematic review of all animal research conducted to date be done before new experiments involving animals are carried out.

The scientists of the London School of Hygiene have cited examples of badly designed animal research and examples of animal research that were conducted alongside human research -- rendering research on animals unnecessary -- to question the point of some animal experiments.

"We are only asking that the same standards [that] are applied in human research are applied to animal research," said Professor Ian Roberts, one of the authors of the report.

"We would not tolerate haphazard and potentially biased reviews of human research, so why should we tolerate this for animal research?"

Accordingly, the London team stressed that they are neither for or against animal research.

The London team conducted a systematic review of all animal experiments that have claimed to have clinical relevance to humans, and found that many of the experiments had weaknesses. Their conclusion from such analysis was that animal testing needs to be thoroughly reviewed.

Professor Roberts echoed the claims in the paper, stating that, "new research, whether in animals or humans, should only be carried out after a proper, systematic review of the existing research."

"What's more, comparing results from systematic reviews of animal and human research will allow us to assess the contribution of animal research to improving human health."

In contrast, The Royal Society has produced a guide that will come out on the same day that the British Medical Journal, which makes the alternative case that humanity has benefited immensely from animal research.

The Society, the United Kingdom's national academy of science, has claimed that almost all of this past century's great medical achievements has involved some sort of animal research. Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC), agreed with the stance of the Royal Society. "Animal research has contributed to virtually every area of medicine. Antibiotics, vaccines, heart surgery and kidney transplants have all been discovered and tested through animal studies."

Professor Blakemore did agree with part of the London team's findings, however. He said, "It's imperative that animal research is properly evaluated before the results are transferred to medical practice. The sample size of this BMJ study is small, but the authors have identified some ineffective clinical treatments that were based on inadequate analysis of results from animal research."

Professor Blakemore pointed out that certain animal studies have been able to tell scientists when it is and is not appropriate to move to human trials.

He also stated that the MRC's policy is that animals should be used in research only when strictly necessary, and that alternatives to animal research should be developed.

He also mentioned that the vast majority of the funding provided by the MRC was for studies of disease processes and how the body works, not for new drug trials.

"Where we do fund clinical trials of potential new treatments, we expect animal studies to be completed before human studies begin. Furthermore, researchers are expected to demonstrate what potentially positive or negative effects have been found in animals," he said.

Despite its questionable results, the paper by the scientists at the London School of Hygiene is being hailed by animal rights groups.

These groups have been encouraged by the conclusions of the paper, stating that it is a major breakthrough in the scientific community's willingness to debate the issue of animal research -- whether it works and whether it should even be conducted.

Jan Creamer, chief executive of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, remarked, "Currently, we only see the results of animal experiments years after they have occurred -- when the researcher published the work. This can be between three and 10 years after the event. So the debate about whether animals should have been used takes place too late."

Creamer continued, "We want to shift this to the position where there is full public scrutiny before a license is granted."