Brueghel's two monkeys

0Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Progress in finding alternatives to animal tests continues to be painfully slow, and pain is certainly the operative word for animals involved in the tests. US government agencies are not simply being slow, they are not moving forward at all. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency has been directed by Congress to spend a small amount of its budget on non-animal test method development, yet it has not done so, and the in vivo percutaneous absorption test continues to be used, despite the existence of an approved non-animal method. A movement is building that may compel industry to stop hiding behind the regulators and take action. There are excellent reasons to stop fighting such advances. For ethical, practical, business and other reasons, it is time to enthusiastically embrace an effective approach to finding, advocating and adopting non-animal test methods.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Newkirk, I. E. (2004). Brueghel’s two monkeys. In Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (Vol. 32, pp. 747–752). FRAME. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119290403201s123

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free