Having studied and worked in this area of science for a number of years (species differences in relation to animal 'models') I can tell you with certainty that there are reams of papers that discuss crucial differences that invalidate the entire 'animal model' paradigm. It's unfortunate that a large report I produced for a client in 2010 was not published. I am working on a blogpost specifically relating to the type of animal study proposed here, but it will take a while. In the meantime here is a small extract from my report that illustrates the general problems and also refers to major heart differences: The relevant references are: Knight, A. (2008) Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Contributions Toward Human Healthcare, Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials, , vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 89-96 Langley, G. (2009) The validity of animal experiments in medical research/validité de l’expérimentation animale en recherche médicale, Revue Semestrielle de Droit Animalier, vol. 1, pp. 161-168 Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., Sandercock, P., Macleod, M., Mignini, L.E., Jayaram, P. and Khan, K.S. (2006) Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review, British Medical Journal, 334 (7586): 197, online at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7586/197 ten Tusscher, K., Department of Theoretical Biology/Bioinformatics, Faculty of Biology, Utrecht University (2007) Ventricular Fibrillation in the Human Heart. Why is it different from Fibrillation in the Dog and Pig Heart? Video lecture, text, diagrams and slides online at http://videolectures.net/eccs07_tusscher_vfh/ I haven't checked the URLs - they may no longer work. A 50% predictability rate means that one may as well toss a coin.