The dissemination of information about methods in in-vitro toxicology is subject to a number of constraints which are identified and discussed, as are the ways in which INVITTOX seeks to address these problems. The continued interest of scientists in INVITTOX suggests that a real gap in information provision is being filled.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Kuhn TSThe route to normal science. In: The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn (International encyclopedia of unified science, vol. 2, no. 2), pp. 10-22. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
2.
De Solla Price D.Invisible colleges and the affluent scientifc commuter. In L ittle science, big science, pp 62-91. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965.
3.
De Solla Price, D.Prologue to a science of science. In Little science, bigh science , pp 1-32. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965.
4.
Hamilton DPResearch papers: who's uncited now? Science1991; 251: 25.
5.
Gray J. & Perry B.The pattern of scientifc communication. In: Scientific Information (Science and Engineering Policy Series), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
6.
Warren M., Atkinson K. & Steer S.Introducing INVITTOX, the ERGATT/FRAME in-vitro toxicology data bank. ATLA1989; 16: 332-43.
7.
Scholarly communication: The report of the National Enquiry . Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1979.
8.
Ungar K., Atkinson K. & Steer S.INVITTOX Protocols. ATLA 1990 17: 407-10.
9.
Balls M, Southee JA & Bridges JW (eds). Animals and alternatives in toxicology -present status and future prospects: Proceedings of an international conference to consider the Second Report of the FRAME Toxicity Committee, held at the Royal College of Physicians, London on 12-13 November 1990. London: Macmillan , and New York; VCH Publishers , in preparation.
