Research Report June 97
P&G, Johns Hopkins lead the way with research information clearinghouse
By: Norma Bennett Woolf Date: 01/12/2012 Category: | Research Reports |
The Procter & Gamble Company, the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, and the Humane Society of the US have joined three government agencies to fund and develop the Alternatives to Animal Testing Website.
"The major problem we face today is that there is no single definitive source for information on alternatives to animals testing," said Alan M. Goldberg, director of CAAT. "Establishing this website is the beginning of a long-term effort by scientists and the animal protection community to bring together existing information and create the opportunity to share new information on alternatives."
The effort is designed to bring together government agencies, the academic community, animal protection groups, and private industry to encourage replacement of existing animal methods with non-animal methods whenever possible; reducing the number of animals needed; or refining research procedures to minimize pain or discomfort of test animals where animal use remains necessary.
The website will serve as a resource for scientists seeking technical information on alternatives in biological research, testing, and education; host bulletin boards and discussion areas that allow scientists to share information; link electronically to other sources of information on alternatives; have access to a search engine that will improve current capability for searching the Internet for information on alternatives to animals in testing, education, and research; and provide information specifically geared to educators and the general public.
"P&G's investment in this website is in response to our scientists and consumers who have shown growing support for our commitment to help develop alternative methods of testing new ingredients for everyday products . . . methods that don't involve testing on animals," said John Pepper, P&G chairman and chief executive.
Although P&G has been a leader in developing such alternatives, it has frequently been a target of animal rights demonstrations and protests.
The web address for the Alternatives to Animal Testing Website is http://infonet.welch.jhu.edu/~caat.
P&G awards research grants
The Procter & Gamble Company announced the winners of two major research grants from its International Program for Animal Alternatives in March. Each of the researchers will receive up to $50,00 per year for a maximum of three years.
The recipients were:
- Gerard M.J. Beijersbergen van Henegouwen, professor at Leiden University, The Netherlands, for development of a new method to test sunscreens; and
- Brian K. Schoichet, assistant professor, Northwestern University medical School, for development of an improved computer model that will help screen the toxicity of new materials.
P&G began the IPAA program in 1989 and has invested more than $55 million to develop, validate, and promote acceptance of new alternative methods for safety assessment and drug development. Since 1984, the company has reduced the use of animals for safety testing in non-food and drug products by 90 percent and has awarded IPAA grants for 23 research proposals.
Gillette awards $100,000 for in vitro tests
The Gillette Company, a favorite target of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other animal rights groups, has awarded two more grants for the development of non-animal testing methods. The grant program funds only research that uses neither animals nor animal cells.
Scientists getting this year's awards are Nader G. Abraham, PhD and Michal L. Schwartzman PhD, both of the Department of Pharmacology at New York Medical College, and James D. Zieske, PhD, of the Schepens Eye Research Institute, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School.
Both research programs will use a patented human corneal epithelial cell line developed by scientists at The Gillette In Vitro Testing and Research Laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The cell line was developed with human corneas in an effort to create a non-animals testing method to replace the modified Draize eye irritancy test. The corneas are donated by an eye bank and are unsuitable for transplants.
AWA amendment would tighten controls on dogs and cats sold to labs
House Bill 594, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to tighten the use of dogs and cats for research by tightening controls on sources of the animals. If the bill is passed into law, permissible sources of research canines and felines will be:
a licensed dealer who has bred and raised the animal;
a publicly owned and operated animal shelter that is registered with the US Department of Agriculture and has obtained the animal from its legal owner;
an individual who is donating the animal and who bred and raised the animal or owned it for at least a year; and
a research facility licensed by the USDA.
The amendment will end the Class B dealer license that has been issued to dealers who acquire dogs and cats from a variety of sources, including individuals, pounds, shelters, breeders, and other dealers. Penalty for violation is $1000 for each transgression.
About The Author
All Authors Of This Article: | Norma Bennett Woolf |