The proposition that animal tests are inherently valid, merely because they are animal tests, is discussed and is rejected. It is concluded that there is no justifiable reason for subjecting new or substantially modified animal test procedures or testing strategies to a validation process that is any less stringent than that applied to non-animal tests and testing strategies.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
2.
WorthA., & BallsM. (2002). The principles of validation and the ECVAM validation process. ATLA30, Suppl. 2, 15–21.
3.
O'ConnorA.M. (1997). Barriers to regulatory acceptance. In Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics (ed. van ZutphenL.F.M., & BallsM.), pp. 1173–1176. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.
4.
CombesR.D. (2000). Endocrine disruptors: a critical review of in vitro and in vivo testing strategies for assessing their toxic hazard to humans. ATLA28, 81–118.
5.
OECD (1996). Final Report of the OECD Workshop on Harmonisation of Validation and Acceptance Criteria for Alternative Toxicological Test Methods, 60 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
