Flaws in the reporting of animal testing success.

I have come across a source that calls into question the validity of animal testing for the purpose of human utility.  “Human utility” refers to how usable specific information is in the field of human medicine.  It was originally featured in the “Alternatives to Animal Testing and Experimentation” newsletter and is written by Andrew Knight, titled “Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human utility”.  In this article, Knight asserts that systematic review of animal related research is necessary to determine the relevance of the acquired data due the possibility that past reviews of this kind may have been biased in favor of animal research. Simply put, the effectiveness of animal research itself needs to be researched.   He also asserts that the number of such case studies conducted in the past are limited and also may have been biased.  Research on this very topic that has already been conducted typically only took into account a very small number of cases, where the basis of selection for inclusion for such studies may have also been biased.  By conducting systematic studies, Knight believes this will reveal the truth about the effectiveness of animal testing by eliminating the bias.  In his own words, “Experiments included in such reviews are selected without bias, via randomization or similarly methodical and impartial means.”  Knight hopes to determine the rate at which animal testing actually provides usable results, not just cite specific tests that have.