60 Years of the 3Rs symposium: Lessons learned and the road ahead.

When The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique was published in 1959, authors William Russell and Rex Burch had a modest goal: to make researchers think about what they were doing in the laboratory – and to do it more humanely. Sixty years later, their groundbreaking book was celebrated for inspiring a revolution in science and launching a new field: The 3Rs of alternatives to animal experimentation. On November 22, 2019, some pioneering and leading scientists and researchers in the field gathered at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Bal­timore for the 60 Years of the 3Rs Symposium: Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead.

Brazilian National Network of Alternative Methods (RENAMA) 10th Anniversary: Meeting of the Associated Laboratories, May 2022.

The Brazilian National Network of Alternative Methods (RENAMA), which is linked to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, is currently comprised of 51 laboratories from CROs, academia, industry and government. RENAMA's aim is to develop and validate new approach methodologies (NAMs), as well as train researchers and disseminate information on their use - thus reducing Brazilian, and consequently Latin American, dependence on external technology. Moreover, it promotes the adoption of NAMs by educators and trained researchers, as well as the implementation of good laboratory practice (GLP) and the use of certified products.

The 19th FRAME Annual Lecture, November 2022: Safer Chemicals and Sustainable Innovation Will Be Achieved by Regulatory Use of Modern Safety Science, Not by More Animal Testing.

The decisions we make on chemical safety, for consumers, workers and the environment, must be based on the best scientific data and knowledge available. Rapid advances in biology, in cell-based technologies and assays, and in analytical and computational approaches, have led to new types of highly relevant scientific data being generated. Such data enable us to improve the safety decisions we make, whilst also enabling us to avoid animal testing.

Upholding the EU's Commitment to 'Animal Testing as a Last Resort' Under REACH Requires a Paradigm Shift in How We Assess Chemical Safety to Close the Gap Between Regulatory Testing and Modern Safety Science.

Animal use for testing chemicals under REACH continues to increase, despite advances in non-animal safety science during the past 15 years. The application of modern science and technology, and the use of 'next generation' weight-of-evidence assessment approaches, are embedded in EU guidance for establishing the safety of cosmetics and foods - and of the ingredients used in these products. However, this is still not the case for the regulation of chemicals.

Lessons from Toxicology: Developing a 21st-Century Paradigm for Medical Research.

Biomedical developments in the 21st century provide an unprecedented opportunity to gain a dynamic systems-level and human-specific understanding of the causes and pathophysiologies of disease. This understanding is a vital need, in view of continuing failures in health research, drug discovery, and clinical translation. The full potential of advanced approaches may not be achieved within a 20th-century conceptual framework dominated by animal models.

Assuring safety without animal testing: Unilever's ongoing research programme to deliver novel ways to assure consumer safety.

Assuring consumer safety without the generation of new animal data is currently a considerable challenge. However, through the application of new technologies and the further development of risk-based approaches for safety assessment, we remain confident it is ultimately achievable. For many complex, multi-organ consumer safety endpoints, the development, evaluation and application of new, non-animal approaches is hampered by a lack of biological understanding of the underlying mechanistic processes involved.

Non-animal approaches for consumer safety risk assessments: Unilever's scientific research programme.

Non-animal based approaches to risk assessment are now routinely used for assuring consumer safety for some endpoints (such as skin irritation) following considerable investment in developing and applying new methods over the past 20 years. Unilever's research programme into non-animal approaches for safety assessment is currently focused on the application of new technologies to risk assessments in the areas of skin allergy, cancer and general toxicity (including inhalation toxicity). In all of these areas, a long-term investment is essential to increase the scientific understanding of the underlying biological and chemical processes that we believe will ultimately form a sound basis for novel risk assessment approaches.

Assuring consumer safety without animal testing: a feasibility case study for skin sensitisation.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis (ACD; chemical-induced skin sensitisation) represents a key consumer safety endpoint for the cosmetics industry. At present, animal tests (predominantly the mouse Local Lymph Node Assay) are used to generate skin sensitisation hazard data for use in consumer safety risk assessments. An animal testing ban on chemicals to be used in cosmetics will come into effect in the European Union (EU) from March 2009.

The ECVAM international validation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation: report on the validity of the EPISKIN and EpiDerm assays and on the Skin Integrity Function Test.

ECVAM sponsored a formal validation study on three in vitro tests for skin irritation, of which two employ reconstituted human epidermis models (EPISKIN, EpiDerm), and one, the skin integrity function test (SIFT), employs ex vivo mouse skin. The goal of the study was to assess whether the in vitro tests would correctly predict in vivo classifications according to the EU classification scheme, "R38" and "no label" (i.e.

Working together to respond to the challenges of EU policy to replace animal testing.

This paper presents a personal perspective on efforts during the past 15 years to replace animal testing for assessing the safety of chemicals and products. It is based on an invited lecture--the FRAME Annual Lecture--given in October 2005, with the theme of "making progress by working together" (government-industry-academia-NGOs). Where we have achieved some successes, these have clearly been due to effective cooperation and collaboration between the relevant stakeholders.

The feasibility of replacing animal testing for assessing consumer safety: a suggested future direction.

At present, we are unable to use much of the data derived from alternative (non-animal) tests for human health risk assessment. This brief Comment outlines why it is plausible that new paradigms could be developed to enable risk assessment to support consumer safety decisions, without the need to generate data in animal tests. The availability of technologies that did not exist 10 years ago makes this new approach possible.

Update on the validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative tests for skin corrosion and irritation.

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) has supported validation studies on in vitro tests for skin corrosion, resulting in the validities of four alternative tests being endorsed. The US Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) has also evaluated the validity of these alternative methods for skin corrosion testing. In the European Union, a new Test Method on Skin Corrosion (B.

The Third FRAME Toxicity Committee: working toward greater implementation of alternatives in toxicity testing.

FRAME (the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments; http://www. frame.org.

ECVAM's activities in validating alternative tests for skin corrosion and irritation.

ECVAM has funded and managed validation studies on in vitro tests for skin corrosion, resulting in the validities of four in vitro tests being endorsed by the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee: the rat skin transcutaneous electrical resistance (TER) assay, two tests based on the use of commercial reconstituted human skin equivalents, EPISKIN and EpiDerm, and another commercially-produced test, CORROSITEX. In the European Union (EU), a new test method on skin corrosion (B.40), incorporating the rat skin TER and human skin model assays, was included in Annex V of Directive 67/548/EEC in mid-2000, thereby making the use of in vitro alternatives for skin corrosion testing of chemicals mandatory in the EU.

Non-animal testing strategies for assessment of the skin corrosion and skin irritation potential of ingredients and finished products.

The dermatotoxicologist today is faced with a dilemma. Protection of workers and consumers from skin toxicities (irritation and allergy) associated with exposure to products, and the ingredients they contain, requires toxicological skin testing prior to manufacture, transport, or marketing. Testing for skin corrosion or irritation has traditionally been conducted in animals, particularly in rabbits via the long established Draize test method.

Follow-up to the ECVAM prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods Skin Irritation Task Force report 2.

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) Skin Irritation Task Force was established in 1996, to review the status of the development and validation of alternative tests for skin irritation and corrosion, and to identify appropriate non-animal tests for predicting human skin irritation that were sufficiently well-developed to be prevalidated and validated by ECVAM. The EpiDerm method, based on a reconstituted human skin model, was proposed as being sufficiently well advanced to enter a prevalidation (PV) study. Based on a review of test protocols, prediction models (PMs), and data submitted by test developers on ten specified chemicals, with 20% sodium lauryl sulphate as a reference standard, the task force recommended the inclusion of four other tests: EPISKIN and PREDISKIN, based on reconstituted human epidermis or on human skin; the non-perfused pig-ear test, based on pig skin; and the skin integrity function test (SIFT), with ex vivo mouse skin.

Comparative evaluation of five in vitro tests for assessing the eye irritation potential of hair-care products.

This study compared five methods, the isolated rabbit eye (IRE), bovine corneal opacity and permeability (BCOP), EpiOcular, fluorescein leakage (FL) and neutral red release (NRR) assays, for predicting the eye irritation potential of hair-care formulations. Ten shampoo and seven conditioner formulations of known ocular irritation potential were tested. Each group included a market-acceptable formulation as a comparative benchmark.

Gene expression analysis of EpiDerm following exposure to SLS using cDNA microarrays.

There is a need to investigate the mechanistic basis of the human skin irritation response if relevant in vitro test systems for the predictive identification of skin irritation hazards are to be developed. Recent progress in genomics technologies mean that tools for the identification and investigation of important biochemical events in the processes of skin irritation are now available. The aim of this work was to identify genes (for further mechanistic investigation) which may be regulated in response to skin irritation, following exposure of the EpiDerm skin model to the known skin irritant sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS).

A prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation. results and evaluation by the Management Team.

A prevalidation study on in vitro tests for acute skin irritation was conducted during 1999 and 2000. The overall objective of validation in this area, of which this prevalidation study is an initial stage, is to identify tests capable of discriminating irritants (I) from non-irritants (NI), as defined according to European Union (EU) risk phrases ("R38"; no classification) and the harmonised OECD criteria ("Irritant"; no label). This prevalidation study specifically addressed aspects of: protocol refinement (phase I), protocol transfer (phase II), and protocol performance (phase III), in accordance with the prevalidation scheme defined by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM).

Validation of in vitro Tests for Skin Corrosivity.

There have been several highly significant achievements in the area of alternatives for skin corrosivity testing in the last three years, most notably: (a) the validation, and subsequent endorsement, of two replacement alternative tests for skin corrosivity (the rat skin transcutaneous electrical resistance [TER] and EPISKINtrade mark human skin model assays) by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM); (b) an evaluation of the proposed OECD testing strategy for skin corrosion/irritation as it relates to the classification of corrosives; (c) completion of a successful prevalidation study on the use of the EpiDermtrade mark human skin model for corrosivity testing; (d) a review of CORROSITEXtrade mark by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) in the US; and (e) the submission of draft new test guidelines on skin corrosion to the OECD Secretariat and EU National Coordinators (Annex V test methods). It is now hoped that regulatory acceptance of the validated in vitro tests for skin corrosivity, at both EU and OECD levels, will be secured as quickly as possible.

The validation and acceptance of alternatives to animal testing.

Validation is the key to the regulatory status of alternative methods. A series of questions are put, to which answers are given, including the following: What is validation? What is meant by "relevance", "reliability" and "purpose"? Why and when is formal validation necessary? What comes before and after a formal validation study? How have validation criteria been defined, and to what extent have they been harmonized internationally? How are validation studies set up, managed and funded? What is a test? Do prediction models have to be validated? What is prevalidation? What is acceptance, and who is responsible for acceptance? How are validation studies reported? How should a validated test be defined and recognized? Must all new tests be validated? Are the same standards being applied to new in vitro and new in vivo tests? Has validation been successful so far? What can be done to improve validation? Is validation helping or hindering the development of in vitro toxicology and the implementation of the 'Three Rs' of Russell & Burch?