FestingM.F.W., BaumansV., CombesR.D., HalderM., HendriksenC.F.M., HowardB.R., LovellD.P., MooreG.J., OverendP., & WilsonM.S. (1998). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in biomedical research: problems and possible solutions. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 29. ATLA26, 283–301.
2.
CombesR.D. (2004). The use of human cells in biomedical research and testing. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 43–49.
3.
FestingM.F.W. (2004). Good experimental design and statistics can save animals, but how can it be promoted?ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 133–135.
4.
FestingM.F.W. (2004). Refinement and reduction through the control of variation. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 259–263.
5.
FryD. (2004). Reduction by well-defined objectives. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 241–244.
6.
PhillipsB., SmithD., CombesR., DescotesG., Dyring JacobsenS., HackR., KemkowskiJ., KrauserK., PfisterR., RabemampianinaY., SparrowS., Stephan-GueldnerM., & von LandenbergF. (2004). An approach to minimise dog use in regulatory toxicology: production of a best practice guide to study design. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 447–451.
7.
SeidleT.K., LangleyG., & CombesR.D. (2002). An alternative strategy for the assessment of chemicals for endocrine disrupting effects. In Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Program and Abstracts. Website http://www.worldcongress.net/abstract-book/abstracts/sesssion-e3.htm (Accessed 30.6.04).
8.
VaughanS. (2004). Optimising resources by reduction: the FRAME Reduction Committee. ATLA32, Suppl. 1, 245–248.
9.
HowardB., van HerckH., GuillenJ., BaconB., JoffeR., & Ritskes-HoitingaM. (2004). Report of the FELASA working group on evaluation of quality systems for animal units. Laboratory Animals38, 103–118.
10.
FestingM.F.W., & AltmanD.G. (2002). Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR Journal43, 244–258.
11.
FestingM.F.W. (2001). Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments in papers submitted to ATLA.ATLA29, 427–446.
12.
FestingM.F.W., OverendP., Gaines DasR., Cortina BorjaM., & BerdoyM. (2002). The Design of Animal Experiments: Reducing the Use of Animals in Research Through Better Experimental Design, 112 pp. London, UK: Royal Society of Medicine Press.
13.
VaughanS. (2003). Comments on the Sixth Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. ATLA31, 207–212.
FestingM.F.W. (2002). Introduction: the design and statistical analysis of animal experiments. ILAR Journal43, 191–193.
23.
HowardB.R. (2002). The control of variability. ILAR Journal43, 194–201.
24.
ShawR., FestingM.F.W., PeersI., & FurlongL. (2003). Use of factorial designs to optimize animal experiments and reduce animal use. ILAR Journal43, 223–232.
25.
BroadheadC.L., & CombesR.D. (2001). The current status of food additives toxicity testing and the potential for application of the Three Rs. ATLA29, 471–485.
26.
CombesR.D., BerridgeT., ConnellyJ., EveM.D., GarnerR.C., ToonS., & WilcoxP. (2003). Early microdose drug studies in human volunteers can minimise animal testing: proceedings of a workshop organised by Volunteers in Research and Testing. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences19, 1–11.
27.
DoubleJ. (2002). Toxicity testing in the development of anti-cancer drugs. The Lancet Oncology3, 438–439.
28.
FestingM.F.W. (2001). Experimental approaches to the determination of genetic variability. Toxicology Letters120, 293–300.
29.
FestingM.F.W., DiamantiP., & TurtonJ.A. (2001). Strain differences in haematological response to chloramphenicol succinate in mice: implications for toxicological research. Food and Chemical Toxicology39, 375–383.
30.
FestingM.F.W. (2003). Principles: the need for better experimental design. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences24, 341–345.
31.
JenkinsE.S., BroadheadC., & CombesR.D. (2002). The implications of microarray technology for animal use in scientific research. ATLA30, 459–465.
32.
FestingM.F. (2003). We should be designing better experiments. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia30, 59–61.
VaughanS., FestingM., & CombesR. (2001). Collaborating to achieve reduction — the work of the FRAME Reduction Committee. Mutagenesis16, 569–570.
35.
CombesR.D., & JenkinsE. (2002). Welfare implications of different approaches to investigate gene function and regulation. In Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Program and Abstracts. Website http://www.worldcongress.net/abstract-book/posters/posters-c.htm (Accessed 30.6.04).
36.
DewhurstD., FestingM.F.W., & BroadhurstJ. (2002). A new Computer-Aided Learning (CAL) program to teach better experimental design. In Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Program and Abstracts. Website http://www.worldcongress.net/abstract-book/posters/posters-c.htm (Accessed 30.6.04).
37.
VaughanS., CombesR., & FestingM. (2002). Optimizing resources via reduction: the FRAME Reduction Committee. In Fourth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences: Program and Abstracts. Website http://www.worldcongress.net/abstract-book/contents.htm (Accessed 30.6.04).