Search

Scientists are usually good at teaching, sometimes even to lay audiences. But communicating with journalists, activists, or policymakers can be a different story - hesitancy to make mistakes as well as the temptation to disproportionally promote one's own case come into play. The multitude of social media and other web-based outlets has diversified and accelerated the communication of science. Real-time reactions, sharing of data, tools and results, increasing invitation of personal opinion, demand for transparency, political correctness, and loss of trust in experts are challenges to researchers in general. The field of alternatives to animal testing is more political and important to lay audiences than many others, so its scientists must be especially aware of these challenges. Public engagement offers the opportunity to form community and create wide support for non-animal research and its implementation. This requires scientists to step out of the ivory tower of higher education and engage with diverse interest groups by outreach activities, interviews, and press releases, etc. by employing tailored communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic toxicity testing forms the cornerstone for the safety evaluation of substances. Pressures to move from traditional animal models to novel technologies arise from various concerns, including: the need to evaluate large numbers of previously untested chemicals and new products (such as nanoparticles or cell therapies), the limited predictivity of traditional tests for human health effects, duration and costs of current approaches, and animal welfare considerations. The latter holds especially true in the context of the scheduled 2013 marketing ban on cosmetic ingredients tested for systemic toxicity. Based on a major analysis of the status of alternative methods (Adler et al., 2011) and its independent review (Hartung et al., 2011), the present report proposes a roadmap for how to overcome the acknowledged scientific gaps for the full replacement of systemic toxicity testing using animals. Five whitepapers were commissioned addressing toxicokinetics, skin sensitization, repeated-dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity testing. An expert workshop of 35 participants from Europe and the US discussed and refined these whitepapers, which were subsequently compiled to form the present report. By prioritizing the many options to move the field forward, the expert group hopes to advance regulatory science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]