The clinical impact of high-profile animal-based research reported in the UK national press: a detailed discussion of articles from 1995, and full search results from the Nexis database

Objectives: We evaluated animal-based biomedical ‘breakthroughs’ reported
in the UK national press in 1995 (25 years prior to the conclusion of this
study). Based on evidence of over-speculative reporting of biomedical
research in other areas (e.g. press releases and scientific papers), we
specifically examined animal research in the media, asking, “In a given
year, what proportion of animal research ‘breakthroughs’ published in the
UK national press had translated, more than 20 years later, to approved
interventions?” Methods: We searched the Nexis media database
(LexisNexis.com) for animal-based biomedical reports in the UK national
press. The only restrictions were that the intervention should be
specific, such as a named drug, gene, biomedical pathway, to facilitate
follow-up, and that there should be claims of some clinical
promise.  Main Outcome Measures: Were any interventions approved
for human use? If so, when and by which agency? If not, why, and how far
did development proceed? Were any other, directly related interventions
approved? Did any of the reports over-state human relevance? Results:
Over-speculation and exaggeration of human relevance was evident in all
the articles examined. Of 27 unique published ‘breakthroughs’, only one
had clearly resulted in human benefit. Twenty were classified as failures,
three were inconclusive, and three were partially successful.
Conclusions: The results of animal-based pre-clinical research studies are
commonly over-stated in media reports, to prematurely imply often-imminent
‘breakthroughs’ relevant to human medicine.