The History of Alternative Test Methods in Toxicology.

The History of Alternative Test Methods in Toxicology.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Superior document:History of Toxicology and Environmental Health Series
:
Balls, Michael.
TeilnehmendeR:
Combes, Robert.
Worth, Andrew.
Place / Publishing House:San Diego : : Elsevier Science & Technology,, 2018.
©2019.
Year of Publication:2018
Edition:1st ed.
Language:English
Series:History of Toxicology and Environmental Health Series
Online Access:
Physical Description:1 online resource (384 pages)
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Table of Contents:
  • Front Cover
  • The History of Alternative Test Methods in Toxicology
  • The History of Alternative Test Methods in Toxicology
  • Copyright
  • Contents
  • Contributors
  • Biographical Notes
  • CO-EDITORS
  • CO-AUTHORS
  • Preface to the Series
  • Preface for The History of Alternative Test Methods in Toxicology
  • 1 - Setting the Scene
  • 1.1 - The Introduction and Influence of the Concept of Humane Experimental Technique
  • 1. INHUMANITY AND THE THREE RS CONCEPT
  • 2. PROGRESS FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES
  • 3. ALTERNATIVES
  • 4. PROGRESS IN THE 1980S
  • 5. INTO THE 1990S
  • REFERENCES
  • 1.2 - Types of Toxicity and Applications of Toxicity Testing
  • 1. THE NEED FOR TESTING
  • 2. TYPES OF TOXICITY TEST
  • 3. APPLICATIONS OF TOXICITY TESTING
  • 4. RISK MANAGEMENT
  • 5. THE REPLACEMENT OF ANIMAL TESTS
  • 6. CONCLUSIONS
  • REFERENCES
  • 1.3 - The Key Technologies
  • 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 2. TECHNOLOGY DRIVERS
  • 2.1 Tissue Culture Systems
  • 2.2 Reporter Gene Assays and Biosensors
  • 2.3 Miniaturised and Large-Scale Culture Systems
  • 2.4 Toxicogenomics and Proteomics
  • 2.5 Other Enabling Technologies
  • 3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
  • REFERENCES
  • 2 - Contributions From Countries, Regions and Organisations
  • 2.1 - Alternative Methods in Toxicity Testing in the UK
  • 1. EARLY DAYS
  • 2. THE FUND FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF ANIMALS IN MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS
  • 3. THE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE THREE RS
  • 4. OTHER ORGANISATIONS
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.2 - Contributions From the German-Speaking Countries
  • 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 2. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SWITZERLAND
  • 2.1 The Foundation Research 3R
  • 2.2 The Swiss Institute for Alternatives to Animal Testing
  • 2.3 The Fondation Egon Naef Pour la Recherche In Vitro
  • 2.4 Swiss Governmental Agency Support for the Three Rs Concept
  • 3. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GERMANY.
  • 3.1 Zentralstelle zur Erfassung und Bewertung von Ersatz- und Ergaenzungsmethoden zum Tierversuch (ZEBET)
  • 3.2 Reducing Animal Numbers in Regulatory Toxicity Testing
  • 3.3 The Regulatory Acceptance of In Vitro Toxicity Tests Successfully Validated at ZEBET
  • 3.4 The Funding of Research on In Vitro Toxicity Testing in Germany
  • 3.5 ZEBET's Wider Activities
  • 4. CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AUSTRIA
  • 5. CONCLUSIONS
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.3 - Contributions to Alternatives From Italy and Spain
  • 1. ACTIVITIES IN ITALY RELATED TO ALTERNATIVE METHODS
  • 1.1 The Italian Association for In Vitro Toxicology
  • 1.2 The Italian National Platform for Alternative Methods
  • 1.3 The Italian National Reference Centre
  • 1.4 The Three Rs Declaration of Bologna
  • 2. ACTIVITIES IN SPAIN RELATED TO IN VITRO PHARMACOTOXICOLOGY
  • 2.1 The ICLAS/CSIC Working Group on Complementary Methods
  • 2.2 The Spanish Working Group on Alternative Methods
  • 2.3 The 3ERRES Mailing List on Alternatives
  • 2.4 Spanish Scientific Productivity Related to In Vivo and In Vitro Alternative Methods
  • 2.5 The Inventory of the Spanish Institutions and Scientists Involved in Alternatives to the Use of Laboratory Animals
  • 2.6 The Spanish Network for the Development of Alternative Methods
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.4 - Contributions to Alternatives From The Netherlands, Belgium and France
  • 1. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICITY TESTING IN THE NETHERLANDS
  • 1.1 Early Years
  • 1.2 Recent Technological Developments
  • 1.3 Organisational Frameworks
  • 1.3.1 National Initiatives
  • 1.3.2 International Initiatives
  • 1.4 Implementation of Alternatives
  • 1.5 Conclusions
  • 2. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICITY TESTING IN BELGIUM
  • 2.1 Early Years
  • 2.2 More-recent Three Rs Developments in Belgium
  • 3. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICITY TESTING IN FRANCE
  • 3.1 Early Years.
  • 3.2 Recent Technological Developments
  • 3.3 Organisational Frameworks
  • 3.4 Implementation of Alternatives
  • 3.5 Conclusions
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.5 - Contributions of the Scandinavian Countries to the Development of Non-Animal Alternatives in Toxicology
  • 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 2. THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE IN VITRO METHODS
  • 2.1 Cell Toxicology
  • 2.2 Neurotoxicology
  • 2.3 Ocular Toxicology
  • 2.4 Tissue Modelling
  • 2.5 Reproductive Toxicology
  • 2.6 Toxicokinetics and Biotransformation Modelling
  • 2.7 Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Testing In Vitro
  • 2.8 Ecotoxicology
  • 2.9 Skin Sensitisation
  • 3. ALTERNATIVES IN INDUSTRY
  • 4. FINANCING RESEARCH ON NON-ANIMAL ALTERNATIVES, 1980-2016
  • 5. RESEARCH CENTRES ESTABLISHED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF NON-ANIMAL METHODS
  • 6. EDUCATION AND NON-ANIMAL METHODS
  • 7. CONCLUDING COMMENTS
  • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.6 - The Three Rs and Alternatives in the VisegrAd (V4) Countries
  • 1. CENTRAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES JOIN WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IN THE EU
  • 2. INITIAL THREE RS DEVELOPMENTS IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  • 3. THREE RS ACTIVITIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
  • 3.1 The TEMPUS Joint European Project
  • 3.2 World Congresses on Alternatives
  • 3.3 Visit of Professor William Russell in 1997
  • 3.4 Alternatives Conference in Prague, 2001
  • 3.5 SSCT Meeting, 2009
  • 3.6 Major Collaborations
  • 3.7 Government Organisations
  • 3.8 The State Veterinary Administration
  • 4. ACTIVITIES IN SLOVAKIA
  • 4.1 Early Developments in Slovakia
  • 4.2 The National Scientific Network on Alternative Methods
  • 4.3 The Slovak Toxicology Society
  • 4.4 Interdisciplinary Toxicology
  • 4.5 The State Veterinary and Food Administration of the Slovak Republic
  • 4.6 The Private Sector
  • 4.7 International Collaboration
  • 5. ACTIVITIES IN HUNGARY
  • 5.1 Organisations
  • 5.2 Governmental Institutions.
  • 5.3 The Private Sector
  • 5.4 International Collaborations
  • 5.5 Journal
  • 6. THREE RS DEVELOPMENTS IN POLAND
  • 6.1 Animal Experimentation in Poland
  • 6.2 The Promotion of Alternatives
  • 6.3 International Scientific Collaboration
  • 6.4 Concluding Comment
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.7 - Australia and New Zealand
  • 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 2. THE 1989 AUSTRALIAN SENATE REPORT
  • 3. LOCAL FACTORS
  • 3.1 The Australian Anti-Venom Industry
  • 3.2 Facial Eczema in Sheep
  • 4. PARALYTIC SHELLFISH TOXIN
  • 5. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
  • 6. COSMETICS TESTING
  • 7. ORGANISATIONS
  • 8. CURRENT REGULATORY INTEREST
  • 9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.8 - Japanese Contributions to the Development of Alternative Test Methods
  • 1. THE JAPANESE SOCIETY FOR ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS
  • 1.1 JSAAE Activities
  • 1.2 International Cooperation
  • 1.3 What Is Next for the JSAAE?
  • 2. THE BACKGROUND TO JACVAM
  • 2.1 What Is JaCVAM's Role?
  • 2.2 Regulatory Acceptance and Ongoing Studies
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.9 - Contributions to the Development of Alternatives in Toxicology in China and Brazil
  • 1. INTRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES IN CHINA AND BRAZIL
  • 2. ALTERNATIVES IN CHINA
  • 2.1 History of Animal Use Regulations in China
  • 2.2 The Regulatory Framework in China
  • 2.3 Movement Toward the Use and Validation of Alternative Methods in China
  • 2.4 Support for, and Regulatory Implementation of, Alternatives Within China
  • 2.5 Special Difficulties or Hurdles to Accepting and/or Using Alternative Methods
  • 2.6 Future Outlook for Alternatives in China
  • 3. ALTERNATIVES IN BRAZIL
  • 3.1 History of Animal Use Regulations in Brazil
  • 3.2 The Regulatory Framework in Brazil
  • 3.3 Movement Toward the Use and Validation of Alternative Methods in Brazil
  • 3.4 Support for, and Regulatory Implementation of, Alternatives Within Brazil.
  • 3.5 Special Difficulties or Hurdles to Accepting and/or Using Alternative Methods
  • 3.6 Future Outlook for Alternatives in Brazil
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.10 - The Role of ECVAM
  • 1. THE EARLY YEARS OF ECVAM, 1991-2002
  • 1.1 Validation
  • 1.2 Workshops and Task Forces
  • 1.3 Biologicals
  • 1.4 In-house Research
  • 1.5 Collaboration in Education and Training
  • 1.6 The ECVAM Scientific Information Service
  • 1.7 Collaborations
  • 1.8 Summary
  • 2. THE EVOLUTION OF ECVAM AND ITS NETWORKS
  • 3. ECVAM ACTIVITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF EU POLICY DRIVERS FOR ALTERNATIVES
  • 3.1 EU Legislation on Cosmetic Products
  • 3.2 The EU Chemicals Policy - REACH
  • 3.3 Other EU Chemicals Policies Relevant to Alternatives
  • 3.4 The European Citizens' Initiative `Stop Vivisection'
  • 4. ECVAM'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL HARMONISATION ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE OECD
  • 4.1 OECD Projects of the TGs Programme Currently (Co-)led by ECVAM
  • 4.2 Activities of ECVAM in the OECD Extended Advisory Group for Molecular Screening and Toxicogenomics
  • 4.3 Activities of ECVAM in the OECD Working Party on Hazard Assessment
  • 5. FUTURE OUTLOOK
  • REFERENCES
  • 2.11 - The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing in the USA and Europe
  • 1. CAAT‒USA
  • 2. CAAT‒EUROPE
  • 3. THE CAAT PROGRAMMES
  • 3.1 The Grants Programme
  • 3.2 The Avon Programme Project
  • 3.3 The Communications Programme
  • 3.4 Workshops and Technical Reports - The t4 Programme
  • 3.5 Education Programmes
  • 3.6 The Refinement Programme
  • 3.7 US and EU Policy Programmes
  • 4. FROM A SYMPOSIUM SERIES TO WORLD CONGRESSES
  • 5. TOXICOLOGY TESTING IN THE 21ST CENTURY - THE HUMAN TOXOME PROJECT
  • 6. THE EVIDENCE-BASED TOXICOLOGY COLLABORATION
  • 7. THE GREEN TOXICOLOGY COLLABORATION
  • 8. THE READ-ACROSS PRACTICE COLLABORATION
  • 9. THE GOOD CELL CULTURE PRACTICE COLLABORATION
  • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  • REFERENCES.
  • 2.12 - USA: ICCVAM and NICEATM.

Similar Items