In recent years neurodevelopmental problems in children have increased at a rate that suggests lifestyle factors and chemical exposures as likely contributors. When environmental chemicals contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) becomes an enormous concern. But how can it be tackled? Current animal test-based guidelines are prohibitively expensive, at $1.4 million per substance, while their predictivity for human health effects may be limited, and mechanistic data that would help species extrapolation are not available. A broader screening for substances of concern requires a reliable testing strategy, applicable to larger numbers of substances, and sufficiently predictive to warrant further testing. This review discusses the evidence for possible contributions of environmental chemicals to DNT, limitations of the current test paradigm, emerging concepts and technologies pertinent to in vitro DNT testing and assay evaluation, as well as the prospect of a paradigm shift based on 21st century technologies.

In order to reduce animal testing, companies registering chemical substances under the EU REACH legislation must propose rather than conduct certain tests on animals. Third parties can submit “scientifically valid information” relevant to these proposals to the Agency responsible, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), who are obliged to take the information into account. The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) provided comments on nearly half of the 817 proposals for vertebrate tests on 480 substances published for comment for the first REACH deadline (between August 1, 2009 and July 31, 2012).
This paper summarizes the response by registrants and the Agency to third party comments and highlights issues with the use of read-across, in vitro tests, QSAR, and weight of evidence approaches. Use of existing data and evidence that testing is legally or scientifically unjustified remain the most successful comments for third parties to submit. There is a worrying conservatism within the Agency regarding the acceptance of alternative approaches and examples of where registrants have also failed to maximize opportunities to avoid testing.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has reached epidemic proportions worldwide and animal models mimicking human T2DM are widely used to study mechanisms of disease and to develop pharmacotherapeutics. Over the last three decades, rodent models of T2DM have yielded more than 50 publications per month; however, many details of human T2DM pathogenesis remain unclear, and means of preventing disease progression remain elusive. This review investigates the reasons for this translational discrepancy by analyzing the experimental evidence from rodent models of T2DM. The analysis reveals significant species-specific differences at every level of glucose regulation, from gene/protein expression, cellular signaling, tissue and organ to whole organism level, when compared with data acquired using human cells, tissues, organs, and populations. Given the extensive species-specific barrier that creates an immutable translational gap, there is an urgent need to further employ and develop human-based research strategies to make significant strides against the current T2DM epidemic.

The proposed Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013 calls for a new evaluation program for cosmetic ingredients in the US, with the new assessments initially dependent on expanded animal testing. This paper considers possible testing scenarios under the proposed Act and estimates the number of test animals and cost under each scenario. It focuses on the impact for the first 10 years of testing, the period of greatest impact on animals and costs. The analysis suggests the first 10 years of testing under the Act could evaluate, at most, about 50% of ingredients used in cosmetics. Testing during this period would cost about $ 1.7-$ 9 billion and 1-11.5 million animals. By test year 10, alternative, high-throughput test methods under development are expected to be available, replacing animal testing and allowing rapid evaluation of all ingredients. Given the high cost in dollars and animal lives of the first 10 years for only about half of ingredients, a better choice may be to accelerate development of high-throughput methods. This would allow evaluation of 100% of cosmetic ingredients before year 10 at lower cost and without animal testing.

This paper proposes a framework to support appropriate application of endpoints in animal experiments. It is recommended that unpredicted endpoints should be explicitly considered alongside scientific endpoints and justifiable endpoints as the three types of endpoint which comprise the “humane.” We suggest there is a need for clear identification of each type of endpoint and an understanding of the interactions between these types. The use of an “endpoint matrix” during study planning is proposed to promote methodically sound and consistent definition, determination, and detection of unpredicted, scientific, and justifiable endpoints in animal experiments. It is claimed that the further development and use of this tool will support a more effective and harmonized practical application of humane endpoints for all animal use in line with best practice recommendations.

Erratum: doi:10.14573/altex.1409081

Article 47 of the new EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes requires national governments to contribute to the development and promotion of alternative methods. A recent survey of EU member states found that reported funding of alternative (3Rs) methods totalled € 18.7 million in 2013, provided by only seven countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, and the UK). There were indications that the contributions of some of these countries have increased since the implementation of the new Directive. However, funding of alternatives is between 0 and 0.036% of national science R&D expenditure and nearly half of the countries that responded reported that they do not specifically contribute. Data (and, by assumption, financial contribution) remains unavailable from half of the member states across the EU, regardless of the method of collection.

The German Federal Administrative Court recently announced an order (finalized on January 20, 2014) on the neurobiological experiments on primate brains of Prof. Kreiter at the University of Bremen. With this order, a preceding court decision by the Higher Administrative Court of Bremen was established as final and absolute and the last glimmer of hope to end the suffering of the primates in Bremen was extinguished. The court decision had claimed the experiments to be ethically justified. The Federal Administrative Court upheld the court decision and issued the order on the grounds that due to the phrasing of both the former and the current German Animal Welfare Act, authorities had no entitlement to assess the ethical justification of an experiment, but were obliged to approve an application if all formalities were complied with. The impact the order will have on the authorization of animal experiments and testing in Germany caused an outrage in the animal welfare community.