balls

/Tag:balls

An Assessment of Progress in the Use of Alternatives in Toxicity Testing since the Publication of the Report of the Second FRAME Toxicity Committee (1991)

Robert Combes, Michael Balls, Lee Bansil, Martin Barratt, David Bell, Phil Botham, Caren Broadhead, Richard Clothier, Elizabeth George, Julia Fentem, Michael Jackson, Ian Indans, Georg Loizou, Vyra Navaratnam, Victor Pentreath, Barry Phillips, Henry Stemplewski and Jane Stewart

The first FRAME Toxicity Committee was formed in October 1979, with the following remit: a) to conduct a thorough review of current toxicity testing procedures, to assess their reliability and suitability, and to make recommendations for their modification; b) to assess the prospects for developing in vitro, target organ and theoretical model systems which would lead to a reduction in studies on live animals; and c) to act as an advisory group to a FRAME Research Fund for the support of projects aimed at the development and validation of alternative methods for use in toxicity testing.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.
2017-01-09T06:29:18+00:00 Tags: , , |

The Way Forward for Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity

Michael Balls et al

I was somewhat surprised when I saw Mary Moxon’s Guest Editorial, “Developmental and reproductive toxicity testing: a potted history”, in Lab Animal Europe earlier this year.1 Contrary to what I had read and heard repeatedly over several years, she clearly believed that laboratory animal tests are a sound basis for human risk assessment and will continue to be used “to protect our future generations”.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

Editorial: When Using Animal Tests or Alternative Methods, We are Also Testing Ourselves

Michael Balls

The correlation between the effects measured in a supposedly useful test with a model system (such as an animal or an in vitro system) and the likely effects in the object of interest (such as a human being) must fall between 50% (the equivalent of tossing a coin, so a relationship below this would be useless) and 100% (which is unattainable, given the inevitably of significant differences between the test system and the object system, and variation in the responses in both of them).
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.
2017-01-09T06:38:52+00:00 Tags: , |