Progress toward the acceptance and application of validated alternative test methods as replacements for animal tests, is being frustrated by the unsatisfactory procedures involved in approving new test guidelines and deleting existing ones
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.
BallsM. (2018). Why are validated alternatives not being used to replace animal tests?ATLA, 46, 1–3.
3.
CombesR.D., GauntI., & BallsM. (2004). A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the EU REACH scheme. ATLA32, 163–208.
4.
BallsM., & CombesR.D. (2005). The need for a formal invalidation process for animal and non-animal tests. ATLA33, 299–308.
5.
CombesR.D. (2013). Progress in the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of in vitro methods for toxicity testing. In Elsevier Reference Module in Chemistry, Molecular Sciences and Chemical Engineering (ed. ReedijkJ.), pp. 1–25. Waltham, MA, USA: Elsevier.
6.
OECD, (2007). Detailed Review Paper on Cell Transformation Assays for Detection of Chemical Carcinogens. Series on Testing and Assessment No. 31, 164 pp. Paris, France: OECD.
7.
CombesR., BallsM., CurrenR., FischbachM., FusenigN., KirklandD., LasneC., LandolphJ., LeBoeufR., MarquardtH., McCormickJ., MüllerL., RivedalE., SabbioniE., TanakaN., VasseurP., & YamasakiH. (1999). Cell transformation assays as predictors of human carcinogenicity. The report of ECVAM Workshop 39. ATLA27, 745–767.
