Andrew Worth

/Tag:Andrew Worth

Metabolism: A Bottleneck in In Vitro Toxicological Test Development

Sandra Coecke, Hans Ahr, Bas J. Blaauboer, Susanne Bremer, Silvia Casati, Josè Castell, Robert Combes, Raffaella Corvi, Charles L. Crespi, Michael L. Cunningham, Greetje Elaut, Brighitta Eletti, Andreas Freidig, Alessandra Gennari, Jean-François Ghersi-Egea, Andre Guillouzo, Thomas Hartung, Peter Hoet, Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg, Sharon Munn, Walter Janssens, Bernhard Ladstetter, David Leahy, Anthony Long, Annarita Meneguz, Mario Monshouwer, Siegfried Morath, Fred Nagelkerke, Olavi Pelkonen, Jessica Ponti, Pilar Prieto, Lysianne Richert, Enrico Sabbioni, Beatrice Schaack, Winfried Steiling, Emanuela Testai, Joan-Albert Vericat and Andrew Worth

This is the 54th report of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). The main objective of ECVAM, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences, and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Training Needs for Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Survey-informed Analysis

Silvia Lapenna, Silke Gabbert and Andrew Worth

Current training needs on the use of alternative methods in predictive toxicology, including new approaches based on mode-of-action (MoA) and adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concepts, are expected to evolve rapidly. In order to gain insight into stakeholder preferences for training, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) conducted a single-question survey with twelve experts in regulatory agencies, industry, national research organisations, NGOs and consultancies. Stakeholder responses were evaluated by means of theory-based qualitative data analysis. Overall, a set of training topics were identified that relate both to general background information and to guidance for applying alternative testing methods. In particular, for the use of in silico methods, stakeholders emphasised the need for training on data integration and evaluation, in order to increase confidence in applying these methods for regulatory purposes. Although the survey does not claim to offer an exhaustive overview of the training requirements, its findings support the conclusion that the development of well-targeted and tailor-made training opportunities that inform about the usefulness of alternative methods, in particular those that offer practical experience in the application of in silico methods, deserves more attention. This should be complemented by transparent information and guidance on the interpretation of the results generated by these methods and software tools.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.