毒理学监管的双重转型--迈向化学品 2.0 和逐步淘汰动物试验。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Andrew P Worth, Elisabet Berggren
{"title":"毒理学监管的双重转型--迈向化学品 2.0 和逐步淘汰动物试验。","authors":"Andrew P Worth, Elisabet Berggren","doi":"10.1093/toxsci/kfae130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The European regulatory framework on chemicals is at a crossroads. There are calls for the framework to be more effective, by better protecting people and the environment. There is also room for it to be more efficient and cost-effective, by harmonizing assessment practices across sectors and avoiding the need for unnecessary testing. At the same time, there is a political commitment to phase out animal testing in chemical safety assessments. In this commentary, we argue that these needs are not at odds with each other. On the contrary, the European Commission's roadmap to phase out animal testing could also be the transition pathway to a more efficient, effective, and sustainable regulatory ecosystem. Central to our proposal is a framework based on biological reasoning in which biological questions can be answered by a choice of methods, with non-animal methods progressively becoming the only choice. Within this framework, a tiered approach to testing and assessment allows for greater efficiency and effectiveness, while also introducing considerations of proportionality and cost-effectiveness. Testing strategies, and their component methods, should be developed in tandem and judged in terms of their outcomes, and the protection levels they inform, rather than their ability to predict the outputs of animal tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":23178,"journal":{"name":"Toxicological Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"160-165"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11775417/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A twin transition in regulatory toxicology: moving toward Chemicals 2.0 and phasing out animal testing.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew P Worth, Elisabet Berggren\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/toxsci/kfae130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The European regulatory framework on chemicals is at a crossroads. There are calls for the framework to be more effective, by better protecting people and the environment. There is also room for it to be more efficient and cost-effective, by harmonizing assessment practices across sectors and avoiding the need for unnecessary testing. At the same time, there is a political commitment to phase out animal testing in chemical safety assessments. In this commentary, we argue that these needs are not at odds with each other. On the contrary, the European Commission's roadmap to phase out animal testing could also be the transition pathway to a more efficient, effective, and sustainable regulatory ecosystem. Central to our proposal is a framework based on biological reasoning in which biological questions can be answered by a choice of methods, with non-animal methods progressively becoming the only choice. Within this framework, a tiered approach to testing and assessment allows for greater efficiency and effectiveness, while also introducing considerations of proportionality and cost-effectiveness. Testing strategies, and their component methods, should be developed in tandem and judged in terms of their outcomes, and the protection levels they inform, rather than their ability to predict the outputs of animal tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicological Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"160-165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11775417/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toxicological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae130\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae130","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲化学品监管框架正处于十字路口。人们呼吁通过更好地保护人类和环境,使该框架更加有效。通过协调各部门的评估做法,避免不必要的测试,该框架也有提高效率和成本效益的空间。同时,在化学品安全评估中逐步淘汰动物试验也是一项政治承诺。在本评论中,我们认为这些需求并不矛盾。相反,逐步淘汰动物试验的路线图也可以成为通往更高效、有效和可持续监管生态系统的过渡途径。我们建议的核心是一个基于生物学推理的框架,在这个框架中,生物学问题可以通过多种方法来回答,而非动物实验方法将逐渐成为唯一的选择。在这一框架内,测试和评估的分层方法可以提高效率和有效性,同时也引入了相称性和成本效益的考虑。测试战略及其组成方法应同步制定,并根据其结果、所提供的保护水平进行评判,而不是根据其预测动物测试结果的能力进行评判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A twin transition in regulatory toxicology: moving toward Chemicals 2.0 and phasing out animal testing.

The European regulatory framework on chemicals is at a crossroads. There are calls for the framework to be more effective, by better protecting people and the environment. There is also room for it to be more efficient and cost-effective, by harmonizing assessment practices across sectors and avoiding the need for unnecessary testing. At the same time, there is a political commitment to phase out animal testing in chemical safety assessments. In this commentary, we argue that these needs are not at odds with each other. On the contrary, the European Commission's roadmap to phase out animal testing could also be the transition pathway to a more efficient, effective, and sustainable regulatory ecosystem. Central to our proposal is a framework based on biological reasoning in which biological questions can be answered by a choice of methods, with non-animal methods progressively becoming the only choice. Within this framework, a tiered approach to testing and assessment allows for greater efficiency and effectiveness, while also introducing considerations of proportionality and cost-effectiveness. Testing strategies, and their component methods, should be developed in tandem and judged in terms of their outcomes, and the protection levels they inform, rather than their ability to predict the outputs of animal tests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Toxicological Sciences
Toxicological Sciences 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
7.90%
发文量
118
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The mission of Toxicological Sciences, the official journal of the Society of Toxicology, is to publish a broad spectrum of impactful research in the field of toxicology. The primary focus of Toxicological Sciences is on original research articles. The journal also provides expert insight via contemporary and systematic reviews, as well as forum articles and editorial content that addresses important topics in the field. The scope of Toxicological Sciences is focused on a broad spectrum of impactful toxicological research that will advance the multidisciplinary field of toxicology ranging from basic research to model development and application, and decision making. Submissions will include diverse technologies and approaches including, but not limited to: bioinformatics and computational biology, biochemistry, exposure science, histopathology, mass spectrometry, molecular biology, population-based sciences, tissue and cell-based systems, and whole-animal studies. Integrative approaches that combine realistic exposure scenarios with impactful analyses that move the field forward are encouraged.
×
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