NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

Why news about animal research requires BIG qualifiers

Posted By



Every week on, we criticize stories for failing to emphasize that a given piece of research was in animals – and for failing to discuss the limitations of such research. Here’s more evidence about why that’s important. The journal PLoS Biology has published an analysis, “Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy,” which, for those of us not accustomed to reading biology journals, is summarized by Excerpts:

Screen shot 2010-03-30 at 7.45.29 AM.png

“Published animal trials overestimate by about 30% the likelihood that a treatment works because negative results often go unpublished, a study suggests.

A little more than a third of highly cited animal research is reproduced later in human trials, and although about 500 treatments have been reported as effective in animal models of stroke, only aspirin and early thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator work in humans. The lack of negative results in the literature may explain why so few drugs tested in animals are effective in humans.

The prevalence of publication bias illustrates the tendency of journals to report positive results, which are often viewed as more interesting and citable than negative findings. “If a result is negative, the investigator doesn’t want to go through the work of writing it up and publishing it, because they know it won’t get into a good journal and it won’t really enhance their career,” says S. Tom Carmichael, a stroke researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles.”

You might also like


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.


April 5, 2010 at 9:12 am

Having followed type 1 diabetes research for 21 years, I am tired of seeing rodent studies. Often the headlines are so promising and then upon further examination the reader discovers the rodent model used is not even spontaneously autoimmune. What a waste.
Dr. Norma Kenyon gives wonderful and realistic presentations of her work at the Diabetes Research Institute ( ) and the audience is appreciative of the reality check slide that follows the rodent results that states “My daughter is not a mouse”.