Do we need a "chair of alternative methods", and where?

Abstract

During the last two decades, the field of in vitro technology has been successfully developed and its use is continuously growing. Advanced tests avoiding animal experiments will be increasingly required for routine industrial applications e.g. for pharmacological high-throughput screening. Moreover and even more importantly, the availability of human cell based methods is essential for future quality assurance and risk assessment in the fields of health and consumer protection as well as environmental protection. Thereby, the potential of such advanced in vitro methods extends far beyond the mere replacement of regulated tests.
In practice, the introduction and expansion of this technology has been achieved predominantly by offering funding and awards to the scientific community. After this initiation phase, the next consequent step to exploit this knowledge clearly consists in academic promotion of this new scientific culture in an institutionalised form. The tasks of such a chair focussed on advanced in vitro tests - most probably the first of its kind world-wide - would cover in addition to (a) research and (b) teaching, (c) the sharpening of social conscience for the topic.
(a) While the validation of alternative methods was formally established by founding institutions like ZEBET in Berlin on the national and ECVAM in Ispra on the European level, the development of further new and more sophisticated in vitro methods to date emerge predominantly as a by-product of basic research. A considerable push might now be given by the structured search for new methods with a spill-over for research-based up-to-date teaching.
(b) The field of alternative methods is more than a panel of advanced in vitro techniques: A culture of systematic evaluation and validation of in vitro tests has been developed, which has bearing far beyond the replacement of animal experiments. In vitro systems inherently prone to artefacts require the highest level of quality control and assurance. A successful initiative to establish a Good Cell Culture Practice (GCCP) in analogy to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) has evolved out of the field of in vitro alternatives. The concept of validating the relevance of an in vitro test in comparison to the respective in vivo situation represents a consequent translation of evidence-based medicine into in vitro biomedicine. In other words: It does no longer suffice that an in vitro model is plausible - it has to prove its suitability and quality.
(c) The broad implementation of advanced in vitro technology into curricula implies development of lectures, courses and other teaching materials including virtual education offers. Such a basis will allow efficient spreading of knowledge and ease transnational acceptance. Last but not least, taking over the leadership for erecting a chair for alternative methods represents a major political signal that demonstrates to the public the willingness to adapt academic education to modern social awareness. A location for such an initiative needs to be found that is in the centre of Europe, has the necessary infrastructure of surrounding biomedical research, international networks for the evaluation and validation of tests, technology transfer to industrial use and access to relevant publication organs.
The unequivocal answer to the question in the heading is therefore: we need a chair for in vitro alternatives because (i) the patient is our primary concern but the animal is not just secondary (ii) man's responsibility for the integrity of all creatures including the own species makes it mandatory.