Purpletigron

There is now an argument circulating that there has never been a systematic investigation as to what forms of medical research are the most effective. That is to say, how do we know whether e.g. non-human or human or computer model approaches are more reliable for any given area of medical research. (As an extra wrinkle, sharing data apparently rather rare in medical research, leading to duplication, inconsistency, omission etc.)

In the UK, LibDem MP Bob Russell has now co-sponsored a so-called 'Early Day Motion' to the House of Commons (EDM 475):

"That this House believes that the safety of medicines should be established by the most reliable methods available in order to reduce the large and increasing toll of serious adverse drug reactions; and calls on the Government to initiate a comparison of currently required animal tests with a set of human biology-based tests, as proposed in the Safety of Medicines (Evaluation) Bill 2009, to see which is the most effective means to predict the safety of medicines for patients."

Conservative MP David Amess is sponsoring the Safety of Medicines Bill 2010-11, which aims to ensure more rigourous standards for putting medicines on the market.

If you have a UK MP, you can use this simple web site: http://www.writetothem.com/ to contact your them about EDM 475 and the Safety of Medicines Bill 2010-11.