Framework for validation and implementation of in vitro toxicity tests |
| |
Authors: | Alan M. Goldberg John M. Frazier David Brusick Michael S. Dickens Oliver Flint Stephen D. Gettings Richard N. Hill Robert L. Lipnick Kevin J. Renskers June A. Bradlaw Robert A. Scala Bellina Veronesi Sidney Green Neil L. Wilcox Rodger D. Curren |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, Maryland;(2) Hazleton Laboratories, 9200 Leesburg Pike, 22182 Vienna, Virginia;(3) Avon Products, Inc., Division Street, 10901 Suffern, New York;(4) Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Room 388 Bldg 32A, P. O. Box 4755, 13221 Syracuse, New York;(5) Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, 1101 17th Street NW, Suite 300, 20036 Washington, DC;(6) United States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street NW, TS-788, 20460 Washington, DC;(7) United States Food and Drug Administration, 8301 Muirkirk Road, 10708 Laurel, Maryland;(8) Exxon Biomedical Sciences Inc., 506 Scarborough Avenue, 19971 Rehobeth Beach, Delaware;(9) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Research Lab, Research Triangle Park, 27709, North Carolina;(10) Microbiological Associates, Inc., 9900 Blackwell Road, 20850 Rockville, Maryland |
| |
Abstract: | Summary The development and application of in vitro alternatives designed to reduce or replace the use of animals, or to lessen the distress and discomfort of laboratory animals, is a rapidly developing trend in toxicology. However, at present there is no formal administrative process to organize, coordinate, or evaluate validation activities. A framework capable of fostering the validation of new methods is essential for the effective transfer of new technologic developments from the research laboratory into practical use. This committee has identified four essential validation resources: chemical bank(s), cell and tissue banks, a data bank, and reference laboratories. The creation of a Scientific Advisory Board composed of experts in the various aspects and endpoints of toxicity testing, and representing the academic, industrial, and regulatory communities, is recommended. Test validation acceptance is contingent on broad buy-in by disparate groups in the scientific community—academics, industry, and government. This is best achieved by early and frequent communication among parties and agreement on common goals. It is hoped that the creation of a validation infrastructure composed of the elements described in this report will facilitate scientific acceptance and utilization of alternative methodologies and speed implementation of replacement, reduction, and refinement alternatives in toxicity testing. |
| |
Keywords: | alternatives in vitro toxicology validation toxicity testing risk assessment |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|