Tag Archives: animal testing

Millions of animals spared from chemical safety tests

Posted on by
Reply

Tens of millions of animals could be saved from use in chemical-safety tests over the next eight years after Europe’s chemical regulator gave the go-ahead to a new streamlined study to assess the safety of substances.

European Union (EU) legislation requires companies to test the safety of the chemicals they produce in two generations of animals to assess the effects on their reproductive systems. Toxicologists were concerned that the testing requirement would mean up to 54 million animals would be used in chemical-safety studies to meet the requirements of REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) legislation introduced in 2007 (see Chemical-safety costs uncertain).

A proposed new test would allow just one generation of animals to be used, with additional tests on a second generation required only if the first round raised concerns. The regulator, the European Chemical Agency (ECHA), based in Helsinki, had threatened to reject the test, saying that there is not yet enough evidence to rely on one-generation testing (see Streamlined chemical tests rebuffed).

But on 15 February, ECHA announced that it has now changed its mind in favour of the Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (EOGRTS). The agency says that the streamlined test will, “under certain conditions”, provide sufficient safety information to replace the two-generation reproductive toxicity study. It says it has already received around 230 proposals from companies to carry out the new test.  Clarifying its role, ECHA says, “Our role is neither to reject or generally approve test guidelines but to assess whether, and under which conditions, relevant new test guidelines could be applied to fill standard information requirements.”

The move comes after Nature revealed that chemical companies were not providing the safety data on reproductive and developmental toxicity REACH requires of them.  Nature also found that very few companies were proposing to carry out alternative non-animal tests, causing further concern that REACH would boost the number of animals used in toxicity testing.

Toxicologists say that allowing the streamlined test, which is quicker and cheaper to conduct, will encourage more companies to test their products.

 

Should animal research scientists speak out?

Posted on by
Reply

“Stay as far away from the camera as possible.” That’s the advice given to scientists involved in animal research by Ranga Yogeshwar, a TV presenter and former scientist, in this week’s issue of Nature. As part of a special focus on animal research, Yogeshwar goes head-to-head with Tipu Aziz and John Stein from John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, UK, on the contentious topic of whether scientists who conduct research using animal models should become public advocates for their research (see ‘Animal testing: TV or not TV?’).

Yogeshwar contends that speaking out will have no discernable impact on the threat posed by fanatical activists. “No amount of argument will change such views,” he says. He isn’t against speaking out in support of animal testing in public per se, but says it should be done via the print media. Television, he argues, is a “totally unsuitable” platform for discussing nuanced subjects such as animal research because it is dominated by emotionally charged simplistic messages.

– Read Yogeshwar’s viewpoint in full

Aziz and Stein, who spoke about their work on macaque monkey models of Parkinson’s disease in a BBC documentary in 2006, contend that scientists must speak out to counter anti-vivisectionists who twist the truth. They add that the documentary led to a proper national discussion on the issue. And with researchers’ details freely available on the web, “remaining silent is not an option”.

– Read Aziz and Stein’s viewpoint in full

If scientists do speak out, what support should they expect from their employer? In many cases not much, according to a survey of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists also published in Nature this week. Although 55 per cent of animal researchers said their institutions encouraged them to communicate with the general public, less than half of them were offered support and training to help them do so (see ‘Battle scars’ and ‘Animal rights and wrongs’).

What do you think? Should animal researchers speak out in public in support of their work, and if so, how? Should institutions only put forward researchers who have been appropriately trained to deal with the media? Share your views in the comments below.

You can read more on this issue in Nature’s animal research special, or take part in a live Q&A about our animal research survey results on Friday 25 February at 4pm UK time.