Zaunbrecher Virginia, Beryt Elizabeth, Parodi Daniela, Telesca Donatello, Doherty Joseph, Malloy Timothy, Allard Patrick
Sustainable Technology and Policy Program, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles , Los Angeles, California, USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Aug 30;125(8):087024. doi: 10.1289/EHP1435.
Ten years ago, leaders in the field of toxicology called for a transformation of the discipline and a shift from primarily relying on traditional animal testing to incorporating advances in biotechnology and predictive methodologies into alternative testing strategies (ATS). Governmental agencies and academic and industry partners initiated programs to support such a transformation, but a decade later, the outcomes of these efforts are not well understood.
We aimed to assess the use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers to their adoption by toxicologists and by others working in, or closely linked with, the field of toxicology.
We surveyed 1,381 toxicologists and experts in associated fields regarding the viability and use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers of ATS for a range of applications. We performed ranking, hierarchical clustering, and correlation analyses of the survey data.
Many respondents indicated that they were already using ATS, or believed that ATS were already viable approaches, for toxicological assessment of one or more end points in their primary area of interest or concern (26-86%, depending on the specific ATS/application pair). However, the proportions of respondents reporting use of ATS in the previous 12 mo were smaller (4.5-41%). Concern about regulatory acceptance was the most commonly cited factor inhibiting the adoption of ATS, and a variety of technical concerns were also cited as significant barriers to ATS viability. The factors most often cited as playing a significant role (currently or in the future) in driving the adoption of ATS were the need for expedited toxicology information, the need for reduced toxicity testing costs, demand by regulatory agencies, and ethical or moral concerns.
Our findings indicate that the transformation of the field of toxicology is partly implemented, but significant barriers to acceptance and adoption remain. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1435.
十年前，毒理学领域的领导者呼吁对该学科进行变革，从主要依赖传统动物试验转向将生物技术进展和预测方法纳入替代试验策略（ATS）。政府机构、学术界和行业合作伙伴启动了支持这种变革的项目，但十年后，这些努力的成果尚未得到充分理解。
我们旨在评估ATS的使用情况，以及毒理学家和其他在毒理学领域工作或与之密切相关的人员认为采用ATS的障碍和驱动因素。
我们就ATS的可行性和使用情况以及一系列应用中ATS的感知障碍和驱动因素，对1381名毒理学家及相关领域专家进行了调查。我们对调查数据进行了排名、层次聚类和相关性分析。
许多受访者表示，他们已经在使用ATS，或者认为ATS已经是可行的方法，用于对其主要关注领域中一个或多个终点进行毒理学评估（26%-86%，具体取决于特定的ATS/应用组合）。然而，报告在过去12个月内使用ATS的受访者比例较小（4.5%-41%）。对监管机构接受度的担忧是抑制采用ATS最常被提及的因素，各种技术问题也被认为是ATS可行性的重大障碍。最常被提及在推动ATS采用方面（当前或未来）发挥重要作用的因素是对快速毒理学信息的需求、降低毒性测试成本的需求、监管机构的要求以及伦理或道德方面的担忧。
我们的研究结果表明，毒理学领域的变革已部分实施，但在接受和采用方面仍存在重大障碍。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1435
Zotero 插件