Before testing new drugs in human beings, drug developers must first perform a series of safety tests in animals. Unfortunately, these preclinical toxicology studies are typically protected as trade secrets. In fact, many countries have laws that specifically bar drug regulators from releasing preclinical toxicology data submitted by drug developers.
Unless you take the extreme view that animal experimentation raises no ethical concerns, this represents a terrible waste of animals and a failure of researchers to enable the sacrifice of animals to enrich the bank of human knowledge. As an afterthought, it’s worth mentioning that this also comes with certain opportunity costs for human beings, since such nondisclosure potentially 1-frustrates efforts by researchers to improve their knowledge about drug safety, 2- results in duplicative expenditure of human resources.
It needn’t be this way, and the field of gene transfer shows one modest way toxicology data could be published and pooled. Since it was established, the National Gene Vector Laboratories, at Indiana University, have invited gene transfer researchers to submit summary data on toxicology studies to their database (the laboratory recently was eliminated and replaced with the National Gene Vector Biorepository– NGVB for short). As described by NGVB director Ken Cornetta and project coordinator Lorraine Matheson in Molecular Therapy (April 2009), the database is intended to provide a resource for researchers so that they can cross-reference toxicology experiments in their FDA filings and avoid duplicative studies. The authors also envision the database as a resource for grant reviewers.
The database contains 27 toxicology studies in all. This number seems small when you consider the volume of gene transfer studies pursued since the database was established. The fact that every institution that has contributed to the database is a nonprofit suggests that the private sector has not taken an interest in this worthy resource. One question I have is how many private companies have used data contained in this databank in their FDA filings (this should be easy to determine).
These questions aside, other fields should create similar resources to pool data and create opportunities for data linkage. I would go so far as to say that ethics policies should require that, at a minimum, such summary data be published on a public database. The failure to do so seem a toxic waste for animals, scientists, funders, and patients alike. (photo credit: drp, Waste Not, 2004)
BibTeX
@Manual{stream2009-104,
title = {Toxic Waste?},
journal = {STREAM research},
author = {Jonathan Kimmelman},
address = {Montreal, Canada},
date = 2009,
month = apr,
day = 27,
url = {https://www.translationalethics.com/2009/04/27/toxic-waste/}
}
MLA
Jonathan Kimmelman. "Toxic Waste?" Web blog post. STREAM research. 27 Apr 2009. Web. 09 Jan 2025. <https://www.translationalethics.com/2009/04/27/toxic-waste/>
APA
Jonathan Kimmelman. (2009, Apr 27). Toxic Waste? [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.translationalethics.com/2009/04/27/toxic-waste/
