Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

An Assessment of Some Recommendations Made concerning the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines

An Assessment of Some Recommendations Made concerning the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines Comment 109 An Assessment of Some Recommendations Made Concerning the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines Angela Auletta Auletta Consulting, 133 Calhoun Street, Edgewater MD 21037, USA E-mail: AAul969490@aol.com Shortly after its publication, I had an opportunity initiated. Moreover, I suspect that any revised to review your article on the OECD Health Test guideline would retain a requirement for a second Guidelines, and I want to say that I could not agree species (both the rat and the mouse for carcino- more with many of your concerns about the OECD genicity bioassay, and the dog or a non-human pri- Heath Effects Test Guidelines (TGs) and your rec- mate for chronic toxicity testing, respectively). This ommendations for their improvement. is because there is much resistance to change on the However, as I am sure you appreciate, some of your part of some regulators. In addition, there has been ideas, although they make good sense, will never be regular discussion about the need to revise TG 417 implemented for a variety of reasons, some of them (toxicokinetics) for some time, but no such revision political, rather than scientific. A good example of has yet been undertaken, despite the fact that many such http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Alternatives to Laboratory Animals SAGE

An Assessment of Some Recommendations Made concerning the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals , Volume 34 (1): 2 – Feb 1, 2006

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/an-assessment-of-some-recommendations-made-concerning-the-oecd-health-9a4bk44el0

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 2006 Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments
ISSN
0261-1929
eISSN
2632-3559
DOI
10.1177/026119290603400101
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Comment 109 An Assessment of Some Recommendations Made Concerning the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines Angela Auletta Auletta Consulting, 133 Calhoun Street, Edgewater MD 21037, USA E-mail: AAul969490@aol.com Shortly after its publication, I had an opportunity initiated. Moreover, I suspect that any revised to review your article on the OECD Health Test guideline would retain a requirement for a second Guidelines, and I want to say that I could not agree species (both the rat and the mouse for carcino- more with many of your concerns about the OECD genicity bioassay, and the dog or a non-human pri- Heath Effects Test Guidelines (TGs) and your rec- mate for chronic toxicity testing, respectively). This ommendations for their improvement. is because there is much resistance to change on the However, as I am sure you appreciate, some of your part of some regulators. In addition, there has been ideas, although they make good sense, will never be regular discussion about the need to revise TG 417 implemented for a variety of reasons, some of them (toxicokinetics) for some time, but no such revision political, rather than scientific. A good example of has yet been undertaken, despite the fact that many such

Journal

Alternatives to Laboratory AnimalsSAGE

Published: Feb 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.