Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Laboratory animals (4)
- Animal welfare (3)
- OECD (2)
- Animal experimentation (1)
- Animal experiments (1)
-
- Animal models (1)
- Animal testing (1)
- Category testing (1)
- Chemical screening (1)
- Chemical testing (1)
- Dermal toxicity (1)
- Developmental toxicity (1)
- Distress (1)
- EPA (1)
- Exposure assessment (1)
- Generation study (1)
- Grants (1)
- HPV (1)
- Hazard assessment (1)
- High production volume (1)
- Immunotoxicity (1)
- Intelligent testing (1)
- LD50 (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Medical research (1)
- Neurotoxicity (1)
- Oversight (1)
- Pain (1)
- Parkinson's disease (1)
- Redundancy (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Organisms
Examining The Regulatory Value Of Multi-Route Mammalian Acute Systemic Toxicity Studies, Troy Seidle, Pilar Prieto, Anna Bulgheroni
Examining The Regulatory Value Of Multi-Route Mammalian Acute Systemic Toxicity Studies, Troy Seidle, Pilar Prieto, Anna Bulgheroni
Troy Seidle, PhD
Regulatory information requirements for pesticides call for submission of acute systemic toxicity data for up to three different exposure routes (oral, dermal, inhalation) for both active ingredients and formulated products. Similar multi-route testing is required in the European Union and elsewhere for industrial chemicals. To determine the value of acute toxicity testing by more than one route, oral-dermal and oralinhalation concordances among regulatory classifications were examined for large data sets of chemicals and pesticide active ingredients. Across all sectors examined, oral acute toxicity classifications for pure active substances were more severe than those derived from dermal data in more than …
An Evaluation Of The Us High Production Volume (Hpv) Chemical-Testing Programme: A Study In (Ir)Relevance, Redundancy And Retro Thinking, Andrew Nicholson, Jessica Sandler, Troy Seidle
An Evaluation Of The Us High Production Volume (Hpv) Chemical-Testing Programme: A Study In (Ir)Relevance, Redundancy And Retro Thinking, Andrew Nicholson, Jessica Sandler, Troy Seidle
Troy Seidle, PhD
Under the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Programme, chemical companies have volunteered to conduct screening-level toxicity tests on approximately 2800 widely-used industrial chemicals. Participating companies are committed to providing available toxicity information to the EPA and presenting testing proposals for review by the EPA and posting on the EPA Web site as public information. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and a coalition of animal protection organisations have reviewed all the test plans submitted by the participating chemical companies for compliance with the original HPV framework, as well as with animal welfare guidelines …
A Modular One-Generation Reproduction Study As A Flexible Testing System For Regulatory Safety Assessment, Richard Vogel, Troy Seidle, Horst Spielmann
A Modular One-Generation Reproduction Study As A Flexible Testing System For Regulatory Safety Assessment, Richard Vogel, Troy Seidle, Horst Spielmann
Troy Seidle, PhD
The European Union’s Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation mandates testing and evaluation of approximately 30,000 existing substances within a short period of time, beginning with the most widely used “high production volume” (HPV) chemicals. REACH testing requirements for the roughly 3000 HPV chemicals specify three separate tests for reproductive toxicity: two developmental toxicity studies on different animal species (OECD Test Guideline 414) and a two-generation reproduction toxicity study (OECD TG 416). These studies are highly costly in both economic and animal welfare terms. OECD TG 416 is a fertility study intended to evaluate reproductive performance of animals …
Report Of The Working Group On Animal Distress In The Laboratory, Marilyn Brown, Larry Carbone, Kathleen Conlee, Marian Dawkins, Ian J. Duncan, David Fraser, Gilly Griffin, Victoria A. Hampshire, Lesley A. Lambert, Joy A. Mench, David Morton, Jon Richmond, Bernard E. Rollin, Andrew N. Rowan, Martin L. Stephens, Hanno Würbel
Report Of The Working Group On Animal Distress In The Laboratory, Marilyn Brown, Larry Carbone, Kathleen Conlee, Marian Dawkins, Ian J. Duncan, David Fraser, Gilly Griffin, Victoria A. Hampshire, Lesley A. Lambert, Joy A. Mench, David Morton, Jon Richmond, Bernard E. Rollin, Andrew N. Rowan, Martin L. Stephens, Hanno Würbel
Andrew N. Rowan, DPhil
Finding ways to minimize pain and distress in research animals is a continuing goal in the laboratory animal research field. Pain and distress, however, are not synonymous, and often measures that alleviate one do not affect the other. Here, the authors provide a summary of a meeting held in February 2004 that focused on distress in laboratory animals. They discuss the difficulties associated with defining ‘distress,’ propose methods to aid in recognizing and alleviating distressful conditions, and provide recommendations for animal research conduct and oversight that would minimize distress experienced by laboratory animals.
Estimates For Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use In 2005, Katy Taylor, Nicky Gordon, Gill Langley, Wendy Higgins
Estimates For Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use In 2005, Katy Taylor, Nicky Gordon, Gill Langley, Wendy Higgins
Gill Langley, PhD
Animal experimentation continues to generate public and political concern worldwide. Relatively few countries collate and publish animal use statistics, yet this is a first and essential step toward public accountability and an informed debate, as well as being important for effective policy-making and regulation. The implementation of the Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments) should be expected to result in a decline in animal use, but without regular, accurate statistics, this cannot be monitored. Recent estimates of worldwide annual laboratory animal use are imprecise and unsubstantiated, ranging from 28–100 million. We collated data for 37 countries that …
The Validity Of Animal Experiments In Medical Research, Gill Langley
The Validity Of Animal Experiments In Medical Research, Gill Langley
Gill Langley, PhD
Other animals, such as mice, rats, rabbits, dogs and monkeys, are widely used as surrogates for humans in fundamental medical research. This involves creating disorders in animals by chemical, surgical or genetic means, with the aim of mimicking selected aspects of human illnesses. It is a truism that any model or surrogate is not identical to the target being modelled. So, in medical research, experiments using animals or cell cultures or even healthy volunteers instead of patients (being the target population with the target illness) will inevitably have limitations, although these will be greater or lesser depending on the model.
Evaluation Of Awarded Grant Applications Involving Animal Experimentation, Michael W. Fox, M. Andrea Ward, Andrew N. Rowan, Barbara Jaffe
Evaluation Of Awarded Grant Applications Involving Animal Experimentation, Michael W. Fox, M. Andrea Ward, Andrew N. Rowan, Barbara Jaffe
Andrew N. Rowan, DPhil
The potential benefits of animal research are accepted by most. However, painstaking care must be applied to the approach and design of the research to ensure the best possible chance of achieving the research objectives and to minimize both physical and psychological distress to the animals. Consideration should be given not only to transport and housing conditions, but also to practices used in the laboratory. Adequate reasons must also be given as to why the research is necessary.
Public concern over the use and care of laboratory animals in biomedical programs contributed to the passage of the Animal Welfare Act …
Scientists And Animal Research: Dr. Jekyll Or Mr. Hyde?, Andrew N. Rowan
Scientists And Animal Research: Dr. Jekyll Or Mr. Hyde?, Andrew N. Rowan
Andrew N. Rowan, DPhil
Why is the public so sensitive about the use of a few tens of millions of animals in research when they do not object to killing hundreds of millions of pigs and cows and billions of chickens for our meat diet? Why is animal research considered so bad despite the public's high opinion of science (and scientists)? Perhaps it is the image of the scientist as an objective and cold individual who deliberately inflicts harm (pain, distress, or death) on his (the public image is usually male) innocent animal victims that arouses so much horror and concern. This paper does …