A History of Regulatory Animal Testing: What Can We Learn?

21Citations
Citations of this article
96Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The contemporary pharmaceutical industry is voicing growing concerns about the translatability and reproducibility of animal models. In addition, the usefulness of certain of the required regulatory safety tests in animals is being increasingly questioned. It remains difficult, however, to make the move toward alternative testing methods, not least because of legislative demands. A historical analysis was performed, in order to study how the mandatory animal studies in legislative requirements came about. This article reflects on the role that specific public health disasters played in the creation of (more) regulatory requirements for animal testing. It will show how the regulatory changes prompted by the sulfanilamide elixir disaster in the 1930s and the thalidomide disaster in the early 1960s were based on the belief that extensive animal testing would prevent similar future human health tragedies. As scientists increasingly highlight issues with translatability between non-human animals and humans, the belief that current regulatory requirements ensure safety becomes more difficult to maintain. In addition, it means that some of the regulations now in place require animal tests that do not contribute to the safety of a drug, as shown in a third case study of the court case by Vanda industries against the FDA. We finally argue that regulations should be critically examined and altered where necessary, so that they are no longer a barrier in the transition toward animal-free testing and more human-relevant science.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Swaters, D., van Veen, A., van Meurs, W., Turner, J. E., & Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. (2022). A History of Regulatory Animal Testing: What Can We Learn? Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 50(5), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/02611929221118001

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

71%

Researcher 3

21%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 7

41%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 5

29%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

18%

Social Sciences 2

12%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free