Kathy Hessler

Implementing Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities

The publication of the US National Academy of Sciences report Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-First Century: A Vision and a Strategy (TT21C) has led to the development of new scientific techniques to modernise regulatory toxicity testing. From 2009 to 2010, a series of five international symposia were held to examine challenges, opportunities and policy issues associated with TT21C. Seven key themes emerged based on these meetings; that the TT21C vision and strategy: 1) is not self-implementing; 2) demands new toxicology techniques; 3) has a number of scientific knowledge gaps that need to be filled; 4) requires evaluation of the new tests to determine relevance, reliability, validity and regulatory acceptance by government agencies; 5) can be implemented under TSCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as currently written; 6) requires multi-stakeholder input and commitment; 7) should harmonise acceptance of test data and methods on an international level.

FUNDAMENTOS FILOSÓFICOS E ANIMAIS EM TESTES: PREOCUPAÇÕES E CONSEQUÊNCIAS

The English version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2928981 Portuguese Abstract: O presente paper busca, a partir da filosofia e da ciencia moderna, demonstrar como sao conduzidas as pesquisas cientificas nos Estados Unidos. A fim de abordar essa questao avanca-se para entender a situacao moral e legal dos animais na sociedade. Animais sao vistos como uma propriedade em cada pais do planeta, disponiveis para qualquer uso que os humanos considerem adequados. Para entender a situacao atual, a autora propoe um olhar atraves da historia. English Abstract: With its ultimate focus being the current practice of animal testing, this article begins with an overview of the religious, mythical, and scientific backdrop against which nonhuman animal welfare is currently considered. The article then offers suggested readings for philosophical approaches to animal ethics before discussing the distinctions between in vivo and in vitro testing, with the latter approach encouraged by Darwin. The article then reviews the Three Rs — Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction — that currently guides the scientific community’s approach to animal experimentation. By establishing how the three Rs approach for humane testing on animals arises in response to involuntary testing on human communities, the article asks if the same considerations to be fully extended to nonhuman animals. From here, the article discusses shortcomings in the Animal Welfare Act and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees in particular, and compares these shortfalls to the more robust EU model, which makes animal welfare an express value. The article concludes by establishing the improvements spurred by the Three Rs principle, while noting that it still fails to truly account for research animals’ interests in not being experimented on.