There is nothing quite like kicking off the year (and promoting a fresh, exciting journal) with a thought -provoking Editorial piece. Of course, the author is Thomas Hartung. I cannot think of anyone else with the temerity and wit to write this. Thank you, Thomas!
It only takes a few minutes to read. I've studied it a couple of times and it is a good Editorial. However, how do we help (bad) toxicologists (and other biologists) to cease using animals and replacing with available new approach methods (NAMs) and non animal technologies (NATs). How do we support the development and use of new test systems and test methods? The NC3Rs published an excellent paper (I am a co-author, so I would say that) identifying the barriers to adoption to NAMs and giving some answers on how to overcome them (see Sewell et al. (2024). Toxicology Research, 13(2), tfae044. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxres/tfae044). It isn't always the regulator or the funding bodies or some other stakeholder to blame. It is something for us all to overcome together; we are all the stakeholders. The justification for the use of an animal should be higher than the justification to use a NAM or NAT and disappointingly (and contrary to the UK ASPA 1986 and other pieces of legislation across geographical jurisdictions) this isn't the case. We have to validate, qualify, justify and identify the test suitability for any particular test article for the NAM. On the contrary, why does none of this seem necessary for the animal test? Even when there is retrospective data demonstrating that the test is not suitable or doesn't predict the human outcome. The real justifications (a) delivering better medicines to patients faster and (b) safeguarding consumers and operators.
Please read https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050620424000022?ref=pdf_download&fr=RR-2&rr=8fc3ef063ec96329. This is advice for good toxicologists and those who want to become better toxicologists as well.