Refinement

Zurlo, Joanne; Hutchinson, Eric

doi:10.14573/altex.1312191

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…-The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) aims, outside of the pressures of regulating or being regulated, to be an engine of change in the safety sciences and other areas of animal use, overcoming the limitations of animal-based approaches and accelerating the uptake of new technologies by collaboration with all stakeholder groups. CAAT has started a number of collaborative programs to advance safety sciences, which include the Human Toxome Collaboration (see above), the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration (see below), the Good Cell Culture Practice Collaboration (Pamies et al, 2017) building on earlier work steered by ECVAM (Coecke et al, 2005), the Good ReadAcross Practice Collaboration (Patlewicz et al, 2014, Ball et al, 2016Zhu et al, 2016), the Refinement Collaboration (Zurlo and Hutchinson, 2014) and others. CAAT's transatlantic think tank for toxicology (t 4 ) has organized more than 30 workshops to advance concepts of toxicology such as integrated testing strategies (Hartung et al, 2013b;Rovida et al, 2015b), epithelial barrier models (Gordon et al, 2015), 3D cell cultures (Alépée et al, 2014), microphysiological systems (Marx et al, 2016), high-content imaging (van Vliet et al, 2014), and has commissioned a number of white papers.…”

Section: Strategic Planning In Toxicologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for strategic development of safety sciences

Busquet

Hartung

2017

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Strategic Planning In Toxicologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for strategic development of safety sciences

Busquet

Hartung

2017

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regarding the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement, although they are internationally accepted and established, diverse interpretation and adjustment are documented [50][51][52][53]. Ιn the European Union, Directive 2010/63/EU states that 3Rs should be strictly implemented in animal research.…”

Section: Institutional Animal Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Research Collaborations: The Perspective of Modern Experimental Research

Tsoutsou¹

2018

ARVS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study background: The contribution of animal studies in biomedical research and science evolution worldwide is invaluable. Each country has developed a national regulatory framework to oversight the conduct of animal research, based on its social structures, culture and ethical values. Aim: The primary objective of this article is to detect the most important similarities and differences in laws, regulations and guidelines among

show abstract

“…This has nothing to do with the monotreatments in standardized disease models. For a list of differences, see Hartung (2013 Sure, we can improve many aspects of how we do our animal tests (leaving aside all the aspects of reducing distress and suffering of the animals (Zurlo and Hutchinson, 2014)): We can use more genetically diverse animals in enriched environments, study both genders and several species. Richter et al (2011) high rates of misidentified cells, mycoplasma infections, and genetic aberration in culture challenge this part of research no less than the animal tests discussed here.…”

Section: Animal Experiments Do Not Reflect Human Diversity Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing

Hartung

2017

ALTEX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

toxicology, animal models are as much misleading as they are helpful. Half of the results are wrong (Ioannidis, 2005) -we only don't know which half… But the statement "half are wrong" is probably rather optimistic. Evidence versus opinion in toxicologyI am a strong advocate of evidence-based approaches, not least because I was one of the initiators of Evidence-based Toxicology (EBT) and the respective Collaboration and hold the first IntroductionFor the 10 th anniversary of Food for Thought … in ALTEX, it seemed appropriate to summarize what we have learned on this journey with respect to the core subject of this journal: the need for alternatives to animal experimentation. The series has mostly focused on toxicology, but here the aspects that apply also to drug development and basic research shall be considered.Sure, we need animal models -when we want to study animals. For example, we have to test drugs for animals in animals. However, when studying human physiology, pharmacology and Food for Thought ... Opinion Versus Evidence for the Need to Move Away from Animal Testing Thomas HartungJohns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA, and University of Konstanz, CAAT-Europe, Konstanz, Germany SummaryScience is based on facts and their discourse. Willingly or unwillingly, facts are mixed with opinion, i.e., views or judgments formed, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. This is often necessary, where we have controversial facts or no definitive evidence yet, because we need to take decisions or have to prioritize. Evidence-based approaches aim at identifying the facts and their quality objectively and transparently; they are now increasingly embraced in toxicology, especially by employing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, quality scoring, risk-of-bias tools, etc. These are core to Evidence-based Toxicology. Such approaches aim at minimizing opinion, the "eminence-based" part of science. Animal experiments are the basis of a lot of our textbook knowledge in the life sciences, have helped to develop desperately needed therapies, and have made this world a safer place. However, they represent only one of the many possible approaches to accomplish all these things. Like all approaches, they come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated. This article aims to summarize their limitations and challenges beside the ethical and economical concerns (i.e., costs and duration as well as costs following wrong decisions in product development): they include reproducibility, inadequate reporting, statistical under-powering, lack of inter-species predictivity, lack of reflection of human diversity and of real-life exposure. Each and every one of these increasingly discussed aspects of animal experiments can be amended, but this would require enormous additional resources. Together, they prompt a need to engineer a new paradigm to ensure the safety of patients and consumers, new products and therapies.

show abstract

Refinement

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

The need for strategic development of safety sciences

The need for strategic development of safety sciences

International Research Collaborations: The Perspective of Modern Experimental Research

Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About