Toxicity Testing

/Tag:Toxicity Testing

2017 Lush Science Prize

Jenny McCann and Terry McCann

Now in its sixth year, the Lush Prize supports animal-free testing by awarding money prizes of up to £350,000 to the most effective projects and individuals who have been working towards the goal of replacing animals in product or ingredient safety testing. Prizes are awarded for developments in five strategic areas: Science; Lobbying; Training; Public Awareness; and Young Researchers. In the event of a major breakthrough leading to the replacement of animal tests in the area of 21st Century Toxicology, a Black Box Prize (equivalent to the entire annual fund) is awarded. The Science Prize is awarded to the researchers whose work the judging panel believe has made the most significant contribution to the replacement of animal testing in the preceding year. This Background Paper outlines the research projects that were shortlisted and presented to the judging panel as potential candidates for the 2017 Lush Science Prize. This process involved reviewing recent work of the relevant scientific institutions and projects in this area, such as the OECD, Human Toxome Project, UK NC3Rs, US Tox21 programme, ToxCast programme and the Human Toxicology Project Consortium. Recent developments in toxicity testing research were also identified by searching for relevant published papers in the literature, and analysing abstracts from conferences focusing on animal replacement in toxicity testing that had been held in the preceding 12 months — for example, the 2016 EUSAAT-Linz conference and the 2017 Society of Toxicology annual conference.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

2016 Lush Science Prize

Jenny McCann and Terry McCann

The Lush Prize supports animal-free testing by awarding monetary prizes totalling £250,000 to the most effective projects and individuals who have been working toward the goal of replacing animals in product or ingredient safety testing. Prizes are awarded for developments in five strategic areas: Science; Lobbying; Training; Public Awareness; and Young Researchers. In the event of a major breakthrough leading to the replacement of animal tests in the area of 21st Century Toxicology, a Black Box Prize (equivalent to the entire annual fund of £250,000) is awarded. The Science Prize is awarded to the researchers whose work the judging panel believe has made the most significant contribution to the replacement of animal testing in the preceding year. This Background Paper outlines the research projects that were shortlisted and presented to the judging panel as potential candidates for the 2016 Lush Science Prize. This process involved reviewing recent work of the relevant scientific institutions and projects in this area, such as the OECD, CAAT, The Hamner Institutes, ECVAM, UK NC3Rs, and the US Tox21 Programme. Recent developments in toxicity testing research were also identified by searching for relevant published papers in the literature, and analysing abstracts from conferences focusing on animal replacement in toxicity testing that had been held in the preceding 12 months — for example the EUSAAT-Linz, Society of Toxicology, and SEURAT-1 conferences.
You need to register (for free) to download this article. Please log in/register here.

A Tutorial for Analysing the Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Methods for Assessing Chemical Toxicity: The Case of Acute Oral Toxicity Prediction

Hedvig Norlen, Andrew P. Worth and Silke Gabbert

Compared with traditional animal methods for toxicity testing, in vitro and in silico methods are widely considered to permit a more cost-effective assessment of chemicals. However, how to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative methods has remained unclear. This paper offers a user-oriented tutorial for applying cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to alternative (non-animal) methods. The purpose is to illustrate how CEA facilitates the identification of the alternative method, or the combination of methods, that offers the highest information gain per unit of cost. We illustrate how information gains and costs of single methods and method combinations can be assessed. By using acute oral toxicity as an example, we apply CEA to a set of four in silico methods (ToxSuite, TOPKAT, TEST, ADMET Predictor), one in vitro method (the 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake cytotoxicity assay), and various combinations of these methods. Our results underline that in silico tools are more cost-effective than the in vitro test. Battery combinations of alternative methods, however, do not necessarily outperform single methods, because additional information gains from the battery are easily outweighed by additional costs.

This article is currently only available in full to paid subscribers. Click here to subscribe, or you will need to log in/register to buy and download this article