It is one of the central aims of the philosophy of science to elucidate the meanings of scientific terms and also to think critically about their application. The focus of this essay is the scientific term predict and whether there is credible evidence that animal models, especially in toxicology and pathophysiology, can be used to predict human outcomes. Whether animals can be used to predict human response to drugs and other chemicals is apparently a contentious issue. However, when one empirically analyzes animal models using scientific tools they fall far short of being able to predict human responses. This is not surprising considering what we have learned from fields such evolutionary and developmental biology, gene regulation and expression, epigenetics, complexity theory, and comparative genomics.

Animals can be used in many ways in science and scientific research. Given that society values sentient animals and that basic research is not goal oriented, the question is raised: "Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?" We explore this in the context of funding issues, outcomes from basic research, and the position of society as a whole on using sentient animals in research that is not goal oriented. We conclude that the use of sentient animals in basic research cannot be justified in light of society's priorities.

We appreciate this opportunity to defend the concepts we expressed in 2000, in Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. Enthusiastic critiques such as Dr Michael Festing's are extremely valuable, if those within and without the field of science are finally to understand, choose among, and embrace viable research modalities that are meant to result in cures and treatments for human disease. Criticisms also help to clarify misunderstandings. We hope this essay will shed light on the debate.

No abstract

No abstract