FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1968339930> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1968339930 endingPage "147" @default.
• W1968339930 startingPage "141" @default.
• W1968339930 abstract "The safety assessment of new chemicals (including medicines, pesticides, food additives, and industrial chemicals) relies on the results of animal experiments. Because the safety of those exposed to these products and the welfare of the experimental animals used are considered critically important, both testing requirements and the welfare of experimental animals are controlled by law. In the U.K., projects that propose to use animals for experimental purposes, including for the testing of chemicals, have been controlled by law for over a century, with the most recent legislation (Animals [Scientific Procedures] Act of 1986) requiring a cost/benefit assessment before it may proceed. New regulations introduced in 1998 will require an ethical review process for all projects from April 1999. Such ethical review will have to take account of the toxicity testing methods and schemes that are required by the legislation aimed at protecting human health. Neither national nor international proposals for toxicity testing methods and schemes are generally subjected to ethical review from the point of protecting animal welfare. The international nature of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry means that testing requirements from one of the major national regulatory agencies (USA, EU, or Japan) or the international organizations (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]or the International Conference on Harmonization [ICH]) have an impact on the testing carried out by industrial organizations in all countries. The recent proposals for screening and testing chemicals to identify endocrine disrupters (ED) from the Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are used as an example of the interaction between regulatory proposals and animal welfare issues. The current proposals are the most extravagant in the use of animals. Between 0.6 and 1.2 million animals would be required for each 1000 chemicals tested. The EPA, before incorporating them into regulation, is subjecting the recommendations to further review. This will undoubtedly moderate the number of animals actually used from the worst-case calculation. The variables that have the greatest impact on the number of animals required for testing are the prevalence of ED chemicals in the chemicals to be tested, and the sensitivity and specificity of the testing methods. The modeling demonstrates, for example, that increasing the prevalence from 10 to 50% reduces the number of animals used to detect one ED from 10,000 to 2700. Knowledge of the prevalence of EDs in the chemicals to be tested would allow rational selection of tier one screening based on the sensitivity and specificity of the screening tests. The EDSTAC proposals are difficult to justify from an ethical perspective, as equally effective detection rates may be achieved with fewer animals. National and international regulatory testing proposals should be subjected to formal independent ethical review before they are finalized, with a view to improving animal welfare." @default.
• W1968339930 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1968339930 creator A5049614190 @default.
• W1968339930 date "1999-12-01" @default.
• W1968339930 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W1968339930 title "Ethical review of regulatory toxicology guidelines involving experiments on animals: the example of endocrine disrupters" @default.
• W1968339930 cites W1549850749 @default.
• W1968339930 cites W1972412541 @default.
• W1968339930 cites W2073264207 @default.
• W1968339930 cites W2118633304 @default.
• W1968339930 cites W3049711239 @default.
• W1968339930 cites W620894355 @default.
• W1968339930 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/52.2.141" @default.
• W1968339930 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10630565" @default.
• W1968339930 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
• W1968339930 type Work @default.
• W1968339930 sameAs 1968339930 @default.
• W1968339930 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W1968339930 countsByYear W19683399302016 @default.
• W1968339930 countsByYear W19683399302017 @default.
• W1968339930 countsByYear W19683399302020 @default.
• W1968339930 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1968339930 hasAuthorship W1968339930A5049614190 @default.
• W1968339930 hasBestOaLocation W19683399301 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C12174686 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C150903083 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C24890656 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C2779962950 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C520753416 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C523966790 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C112930515 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C121332964 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C12174686 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C144133560 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C150903083 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C162324750 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C17744445 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C187736073 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C18903297 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C199539241 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C24890656 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C2777351106 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C2779962950 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C520753416 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C523966790 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C71924100 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C86803240 @default.
• W1968339930 hasConceptScore W1968339930C99454951 @default.
• W1968339930 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1968339930 hasLocation W19683399301 @default.
• W1968339930 hasLocation W19683399302 @default.
• W1968339930 hasOpenAccess W1968339930 @default.
• W1968339930 hasPrimaryLocation W19683399301 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W1422642887 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W2085377866 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W2380896940 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W2390749749 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W2417353479 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W2731068407 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W2895941609 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W3162734544 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W627472324 @default.
• W1968339930 hasRelatedWork W3125108216 @default.
• W1968339930 hasVolume "52" @default.
• W1968339930 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1968339930 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1968339930 magId "1968339930" @default.
• W1968339930 workType "article" @default.