The benefits of validation of methods for toxicity testing outweigh its costs

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-19 DOI:10.14573/altex.2403051
Anne Gourmelon, Philippe Hubert, Elise Grignard, Lisa Baumann, Sharon Munn, Cécile Michel
{"title":"The benefits of validation of methods for toxicity testing outweigh its costs","authors":"Anne Gourmelon, Philippe Hubert, Elise Grignard, Lisa Baumann, Sharon Munn, Cécile Michel","doi":"10.14573/altex.2403051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The 4th Annual Forum on Endocrine Disrupters organized by the European Commission brought together the authors of this article around the topic: “From bench to validated test guidelines: (pre)val­idation of test methods”. Validation activities are meant to demonstrate the relevance and reliability of methods and approaches used in regulatory safety testing. These activities are essential to facil­itate regulatory use, still they are largely underfunded and unattractive to the scientific community. In the last decade, large amounts of funding have been invested in European research towards the development of approaches that can be used in regulatory decision-making, including for the identification of endocrine disrupters. There is a vast pool of candidate test methods for potential reg­ulatory applications, but most of them will not be used due to the absence of consideration of their relevance and reliability outside the method developer’s laboratory. This article explains the reasons why such a gap exists between the outputs of research projects and the uptake in a regulatory context. In parallel, there are also increasing expectations from the regulatory science community that validation becomes more efficient with respect to time and resources. This article shares some of the lessons learned and proposes paths forward for validation of new methods that are not intended as one-to-one replacements of animal studies. This includes submitting only mature methods for validation that were developed following good practices and good documentation, proposing a greater emphasis on well-documented transferability studies, and adopting a cost-sharing model among those who benefit from validated methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":" ","pages":"395-401"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2403051","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 4th Annual Forum on Endocrine Disrupters organized by the European Commission brought together the authors of this article around the topic: “From bench to validated test guidelines: (pre)val­idation of test methods”. Validation activities are meant to demonstrate the relevance and reliability of methods and approaches used in regulatory safety testing. These activities are essential to facil­itate regulatory use, still they are largely underfunded and unattractive to the scientific community. In the last decade, large amounts of funding have been invested in European research towards the development of approaches that can be used in regulatory decision-making, including for the identification of endocrine disrupters. There is a vast pool of candidate test methods for potential reg­ulatory applications, but most of them will not be used due to the absence of consideration of their relevance and reliability outside the method developer’s laboratory. This article explains the reasons why such a gap exists between the outputs of research projects and the uptake in a regulatory context. In parallel, there are also increasing expectations from the regulatory science community that validation becomes more efficient with respect to time and resources. This article shares some of the lessons learned and proposes paths forward for validation of new methods that are not intended as one-to-one replacements of animal studies. This includes submitting only mature methods for validation that were developed following good practices and good documentation, proposing a greater emphasis on well-documented transferability studies, and adopting a cost-sharing model among those who benefit from validated methods.

逐步淘汰动物实验计划。
在欧盟委员会组织的第四届内分泌干扰物年度论坛上,本文作者围绕以下主题展开了讨论:"从工作台到验证测试指南:测试方法的(预)验证"。验证活动旨在证明用于监管安全测试的方法和途径的相关性和可靠性。这些活动对促进监管使用至关重要,但它们在很大程度上资金不足,对科学界缺乏吸引力。在过去十年中,欧洲投入了大量资金,用于开发可用于监管决策的方法,包括用于识别内分泌干扰物的方法。目前有大量候选检测方法可用于潜在的监管应用,但由于没有考虑方法开发者实验室之外的相关性和可靠性,其中大多数方法都不会被使用。文章解释了研究项目成果与监管应用之间存在差距的原因。与此同时,监管科学界对验证在时间和资源方面提高效率的期望也越来越高。本文分享了一些经验教训,并提出了验证不打算一对一取代动物实验的新方法的途径。这包括只提交按照良好实践和良好文档开发的成熟方法进行验证,建议更加重视有据可查的可转移性研究,以及在从验证方法中获益的各方之间采用成本分担模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.90%
发文量
89
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信