Animal studies should be of high quality to enable IRBs to make good decisions. These findings are troubling because they indicate that IRBs and regulators are basing critical decisions on shoddy data. Worse, since most of the animal data is unpublished, the IRBs cannot tell if data had been peer reviewed or not. The authors also argue that the large percentage of positive findings could mean that drug makers are cherry-picking data. For one, drug makers should only report those animal trials that have been registered in advance, so that negative data are not concealed.

Source: The Hindu April 09, 2018 18:46 UTC