Why Do Animal Rights Groups Interact Or Misrepresented?

Statistics are often seen in the media, and use by various groups to act as factual information that scientifically backs the claims of the group, or so they say. There have been many accounts of statistics misused or misrepresented. As seen in the article “Nine out of ten Statistics are taken out of Context,” the statistics used in medical testing on animals has often been taken out of context and misrepresented by several different animal rights groups. It does not come as a surprise that a group opposed to a practice would use whatever data they can to further their position. Saying that something is 90% ineffective and thus should not be used is a fairly impressive number to have on your side. However, any time such a high number is used to prove a point, it should call for a further examination of the evidence. In the article “Nine out of ten Statistics are taken out of Context”, it can be seen where animal rights groups used the position that 90% of medicines that pass animal trials fail in human trials. As such, animal trials are ineffective as should not be used.

However, the animal groups are misrepresenting the data and taking the data completely out of context. The high failure rate means that the trials are working correctly to ensure potentially dangerous medicines or those that are ineffective do not make it onto the market. The animal trials help prevent many potentially dangerous medicines from reaching the human stage of testing, and could not be done any other way without placing human subjects at undue risk. However, several animal rights groups have spun these numbers and place them in their own context in order to make the number appear to back their