Humane endpoints and acute toxicity testing

Abstract

The quest for humane endpoints to studies involving the use of animals may sound altruistic: The goal is admirable but aside from philosophical implications, the achievement of the goal is essential. Mankind has benefited from research using animals. The safety of the food and drug supplies of the world, as well as other chemicals used in today's societies, has been ensured at significantly higher levels because materials have been evaluated through the use of toxicity testing in animals. There is no doubt that manking has benefited substantially from toxicity testing. Convention on traditions, as applied to the use of animals in testing, are used to generate acceptance of older methods. These methods have been validated and documented as being relatively accurate predictors of hazards to which humans may be exposed. The drawback to the use of traditional methods is that the public, people concerned about animal welfare, and the scientific community realize that change is possible. This concept was not original with Russell and Burch, although the initiation of the 3 Rs and the search for alternatives are most often ascribed to them. The goals of toxicology have not changed; however, they have been suffused with the need for more humane ways to accomplish the same results - proof of safety or hazard from materials to which humans may be exposed. The public is alert to any actions taken by scientists. All appropriate measures must be taken to assure the public that (1) their safety is being considered, and (2) no animals are suffering from needless pain, stress, or distress in efforts to assure this safety. The search for more human means of obtaining applicable data, including refinement of experimental procedures, reduction in the numbers of animals used, or replacement of animals with validated alternatives, must be practived by investigators and enforced by ethical review bodies charged with the approval of animal use protocols.