The stipulation in Directive 2010/63/EU that animal tests are replaced when validated alternative methods are available has no value, unless, as with all laws and regulations, this requirement is rigorously enforced, and unless governments, scientists and industries show greater respect for the scientific method
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowlesE. (2018). The myth of replacement and the legal reality. ATLA46, 39–41.
2.
Anon., (2001). Report of the International Workshop on In Vitro Methods for Assessing Acute Systemic Toxicity, NIH Publication No. 01-4499, 370 pp. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA: National Institute of Environ mental Health Sciences.
3.
Anon., (2018). Regulatory Enforcement (Factor 6), 1 p. Washington, DC, USA: World Justice Project.
4.
EC (2018). Applying EU Law, 3 pp. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
5.
HSE (2015). Enforcement Policy Statement, 13 pp. London, UK: Health and Safety Executive.
6.
RussellW.M.S., & BurchR.L. (1959). The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, 238 pp. London, UK: Methuen.
7.
BaileyJ., ThewM., & BallsM. (2013). An analysis of the use of dogs in predicting human toxicology and drug safety. ATLA41, 335–350.
8.
BaileyJ., ThewM., & BallsM. (2014). An analysis of the use of animal models in predicting human toxicology and drug safety. ATLA42, 181–199.
9.
BaileyJ., ThewM., & BallsM. (2015). Predicting human drug toxicity and safety via animal tests: Can any one species predict drug toxicity in any other, and do monkeys help?ATLA, 43, 393–403.
