And to celebrate the 10th anniversary of IVTIP member company SkinEthic Laboratories:
SkinEthic Laboratories Workshop
Reconstituted Human Epidermis and Corneal Epithelium as Alternative Methods to Animal Testing
October 25, 2002, Nice, France
Organization: SkinEthic Laboratories: http://www.skinethic.com
On July 9-10 last, DG Research and ECVAM jointly organized a conference to assess the latest scientific advances, the 3Rs in practice and the 3Rs in the current European and international regulatory context. Participants were 70 invited stakeholders of research, industry, patients groups, animal rights groups, media, policy makers and regulators. In his presentation, Dr. Bruno Hansen of DG Research specifically mentioned IVTIP as a valuable and respected forum of European industry with respect to contacts with the Commission, EU researchers and the transfer of know how and technology.
Commissioner Philippe Busquin called for a EU-wide action: "the Commission is committed to fostering the 3Rs, including through its own research funding, but we can only get good results if there is a joint effort between scientists, national administrations, industry, NGOs and European policy makers". The R&D push is heavily related to the new EU system for registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemical substances, which foresees risk assessment for 30,000 chemical substances by 2012 at a cost of 2,1 billion EURO. The R&D push could be even more critical if the European Parliament succeeds in forcing through its stance against cosmetics tested on animals.
With regard to policy, it was stressed that the majority of animal testing takes place in fundamental biological research, applied medical and dental research, applied research in veterinary medicine and in breeding programmes. However, despite this, Mrs Roth Behrendt of the European Parliament stated that "the EP wished to tackle animal testing with regard to chemicals and cosmetics, but would not question its use as regards pharmaceuticals". A missed opportunity, since the IVTIP meetings show that novel approaches in the drug discovery process in the pharmaceutical industry are resulting in fewer animal testing and greater efficiency.
Another remarkable quote of the day came from Prof Michael Balls, who observed that "the use of transgenic animals has increased tremendously and is way over the top. In the UK, 1 out of 5 animals used is a genetically modified animal." One way out of this dilemma is the use of cell culture models, as was demonstrated by a presentation of Dr. Buerstedde on the BT40 cell line. However, the issue is not only one of progress in research on alternatives but also of increasing awareness about alternative approaches among researchers. Clearly, a lot of mentality changes are still needed.
In the regulatory arena, it was remarked that there is support for an audit of current animal testing in Europe before the development of more legislation. Also, there is a call to speed up the process of regulatory acceptance. Overall, it was observed that there is a lack of candidate tests being developed. But these are needed more than ever, with a great pressure to develop testing relating to endocrine disruptors.
Alternative tests are now available for skin corrosion, phototoxicity, genotoxicity, acute oral toxicity (in vivo), skin sensitization (in vivo) and developmental toxicity. On the short term alternatives are expected for acute oral toxicity in vitro, skin irritation in silico and skin sensitization in silico. On the medium term (2006) alternatives are expected for eye irritation, skin irritation (in vitro and in silico), skin sensitization (in vitro), acute oral toxicity (in silico) and genotoxicity (in silico). On the long to very long term (2010 and later) alternatives are pursued for respiratory sensitization, biokinetics, target organ/system toxicity, chronic toxicity, non-genotoxic carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity.
With respect to research, opportunities are offered by the 'omics' and new developments in biotechnology. But equally necessary is training of researchers and scientists in using alternatives. Funding opportunities are available in FP6 within the larger projects, but the participants to the congress would have preferred an earmarked budget.
For the programme and copies of the speeches, please visit:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/info/conferences/rrr/rrr_en.html
Paper handouts and copies of the list of participants are available upon request from the IVTIP Secretariat.
A central feature in the EU Chemicals Policy Review is the so-called
REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of chemicals)
approach, which proposes a mechanism for authorizing and controlling
the use of chemicals that give rise to particular concern.
The European Chemical Industry (CEFIC) supports the aims of the
chemicals policy review, but maintains that future legislation
should embody a number of general principles. These include the
concept of risk assessment whereby the safety of any given chemical
is judged on how and where it is used and not just on its intrinsic
properties. Furthermore, REACH should not duplicate work already
done. For example, substances controlled by existing legislation
should not need to be re-prohibited and existing data gathering
initiatives should be taken into account. Of particular interest
in this respect are two voluntary programmes and the obligatory
work under the EU Existing Substances Regulation, which are reviewed
here.
Launched by the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), the High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals initiative is a voluntary programme under which the chemical industry undertakes to provide harmonized, internationally agreed data on the properties of about 1,000 common chemicals. These chemicals represent in excess of 90% of the world's chemical production. It will also provide initial assessments of their intrinsic hazard. The work is being carried out in collaboration with the OECD under the refocused OECD HPV Chemicals programme. Under the pilot phase, successfully completed at the end of 2001, the OECD assessed 42 reports covering 46 chemicals.
The Human and Environment Risk Assessment
(HERA) initiative was launched in 1999 and is jointly run by CEFIC
and AISE (the International Association for Soaps, Detergents
and Maintenance Products). The companies affiliated produce the
chemical ingredients on the one side, and formulate the finished
products on the other.
This voluntary chemical management programme provides a common
framework for assessing the risks of household cleaning products
and demonstrates that this process can produce relevant, properly
evaluated safety information. HERA supports the risk-based approach
which looks at a product's intrinsic hazards in the context of
its use and exposure. Phase 1 of HERA addresses 14 substances/families
representing, in volume terms, more than 70% of the chemicals
used in household detergent formulations. For more information,
see http://www.heraproject.com
The debate over the EU White Paper sometimes
obscures the fact that existing legislation on chemicals management
requires a great deal of input from the industry, in particular
for substances already identified as needing attention. In 2001,
work began on the 31 chemicals on the 4th Priority List published
by the EU Commission in October 2000. The European Chemicals Bureau
provides more information on:
http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-chemicals/
(click on Newsletters)
Source: CEFIC Annual Review 2001
See also: www.CEFIC.org
In the soon to start FP6, the EC has looked for modalities to integrate European research and technological activities in a sustainable way. Consortia/project partners will receive more autonomy in the content and execution of the project. This will be done by means of four new project modalities:
Next to the new large project modalities there will be other instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes, called the 'stairway of excellence:
In FP6, there will be a large commitment to SMEs. For example, 15% of the budget for the 7 thematic priorities is earmarked for SMEs. The European Commission has expressed its concern to have the highest participation of SMEs. It is clearly stated that whatever the size of the projects, special requirements for the participation of SMEs will be enforced so as to make sure the largest number of them will be able to participate. Special attention is also being given by the Commission to the administrative burden at submission and evaluation of projects. The Commission has committed to streamlining the process.
More than ever, partnership will be
a prime tool to maximize collaboration with Europe. The Belgian
BioIndustry Association is contributing to the search for partners
with a powerful pan-European project database and expressions
of interests that they have received from SMEs, universities,
industries and other organizations located in the different member
states. Access to the database is through:
http://www.bba-bio.be/smes/
Source: BBA newsletter
The European Parliament's research committee
is asking for a two-stage proposal procedure for Framework Programme
6: applicants should only be asked to submit a full research proposal
if a summary proposal is successfully reviewed. Many potential
applicants are deterred by the low success rate and the disproportionate
cost-benefit ratio. Particularly with complex proposals, it would
be better to spend money elaborating them later.
Source: Research Europe, June 6 2002
The EU Research Advisory Board recently
issued its first formal advice to the Commission. The board was
set up a year ago to give high level advice on research. Here
a short list of some of the recommendations:
high risk proposals with the potential for high returns should
be encouraged in FP6;
abolish the current practice of project proposers and evaluators;
decentralize the present evaluation system (evaluators working
from home and by email);
for new instruments, selected projects should be continuously
monitored by a small group including one of the people who evaluated
the project.
See the full report at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/eurab/index_en.html
The Commission intends to simplify the procedures of proposal making. In short:
The application:
the application presents an outline of the work plan;
the detailed implementation plan refers to the first 18 months
only;
the core consortium needs to be identified in advance, not all
other partners;
besides a written presentation a hearing to elucidate the application
may be organized.
Evaluation of the application will be
based upon a peer review in stages, with as selection criteria:
common values as scientific excellence, relevance, added value
etc (see also FP5);
scale of ambition;
critical mass to match the scale of ambition;
quality of knowledge and exploitation management plan (exploitation
plan refers to Integrated Projects);
quality of project management.
Evaluation and negotiation
External experts will be involved in the evaluation and negotiation
process, which aims to determine and finalize the objectives;
conclude the financial plan; set the financial ceiling; agree
principles for changing the implementation plan, governance and
consortium and detail the first 18 months implementation and budget.
The elaboration is open to change.
The Commission aims to conclude a contract with the co-ordinator
only. Subsequently, the co-ordinator has to associate with the
members of the core consortium. The consortium agreement will
become even more important.
At the end of each 12 month period an update of the work plan
and the budget is requested. Changes in the consortium and the
work plan must involve an open and competitive call procedure,
to be managed by the consortium but involving independent experts.
Commission project officers and external experts will review the
project annually. The midterm review will include a go-no go decision.
The end of term review will focus on the management of knowledge.
The Commission has posted draft versions
of model contracts for FP6 on its website: an outline contract,
core contract and general conditions applicable to all funding
instruments. Also a checklist for consortium agreements. The drafts
can be found at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/index_en.html
The human resource and mobility component in FP6 will be characterized by significant more money, more different actions, extension of the duration of many grants and extension of the scheme outside of the borders of the EU and associated countries.
A provisional overview is given here (no official document yet, so there might be some changes in a later stage):
Fellowship category:
Marie Curie individual Intra-European Fellowships (new: no age
limit). 1-2 years;
New: Marie Curie Individual Outgoing International Fellowships
(to work in established 3rd country research centers);
New: Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships (to attract
top class researchers from 3rd countries);
Excellence promotion and recognition:
New: Marie Curie Excellence Grants (4 years, for creating excellent
research teams);
Marie Curie Excellence Awards (scientific prizes);
Marie Curie Chairs (to attract world-class researchers);
Return and re-integration mechanisms:
New: Marie Curie Re-integration Grants (reintegration fellowship
researcher);
New: Marie Curie Reintegration Grants (professional return to
Europe, 2 years);
New: co-operation with and within national and regional programmes
(proximity support for researchers, in particular for networking);
Host-driven actions:
Marie Curie Research Training (3 years training to young researchers);
New: Marie Curie Host Fellowships for Early Stage Research Training;
New: Marie Curie Host Fellowships for the Transfer of Knowledge
(aimed at less-favored regions and associated countries);
Marie Curie Conferences and Training Courses (for junior researchers).
A strategy is needed to make full advantage of all opportunities.
A full overview is available upon request from the IVTIP Secretariat: mailto:IVTIP@IVTIP.org
DG Research is proposing five schemes
for the support of research infrastructures in FP6. The plans
have a budget of around 450 million EUROs.
transnational access to infrastructures (100% costs involved,
incl. travel and subsistence);
integrated infrastructure initiatives, to develop complimentary
capabilities and synergies;
Support for high speed computer networks;
Feasibility and design studies for new infrastructures or underpinning
technologies;
Construction of new infrastructure;
Support measures for workshops, database and foresight studies.
Source: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/infrastructures.html
If you are not participating in an EU
project, you can propose to become an independent expert monitoring
the EU RTD programmes. This is assessing the progress of implementation
and whether objectives, priorities and financial resources are
still appropriate. Deadline for the 2003 monitoring exercise (in
a panel) is September 15, 2002.
See:
http://www.cordis.lu/expert-monitoring/home.html
Experts from OECD countries, including
government, academia, industry and animal welfare representatives,
have agreed on fundamental scientific principles and practical
criteria for the regulatory acceptance of test methods used for
safety assessment of chemical substances and products. This occurred
at a conference held from 6-8 March 2002 in Stockholm.
The agreement reached in Stockholm includes detailed guidance
on the description of a new benchmark for the quality of testing
methods (Test Description Prediction). The Conference further
agreed on the need form and the details of an independent review
process to confirm the quality of each validation study. The results
of the conference for the basis for a new OECD Guidance Document.
Once formally adopted by OECDs member countries, it will be used
as the international consensus document for the validation and
regulatory acceptance of new methods in hazard assessment.
Source: NCA News nr 12, March 2002
See also:
http://www.oecd.org/ehs/test
or contact:
mailto:herman.koeter@oecd.org
After a couple of years of inactivity,
the European Biomedical Research Association (EBRA) has been relaunched
with a base in Brussels.
EBRA likes to be fully representative of academia, patients and
the pharmaceutical industry with an interest in making sure that
properly controlled animal research continues. The relaunch came
in preparation of the proposed revision of Directive 86/609/EEC,
which governs the "approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of Member States regarding the protection
of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes".
The first text for such a revision is expected by the end of 2003,
following the work of a still to be set up Working Group composed
of representatives from industry, NGOs and member states.
Source: EBRA Bulletin May 2002
A Committee of the UK House of Lords
has concluded in a July report that the development of alternatives
to animal research in the UK is being impeded by inertia in the
UK scientific community and across government.. The Committee
also concluded that 'it would appear that alternative methods
could be of scientific benefit, therefore there is a need to shift
this quite substantially up the agenda on all fronts. But the
Committee has been unimpressed with the attitude of the Department
of Health and the UK Home Office. For example, the Department
of Health does not have a specific budget for alternatives. One
proposal which the Committee has expressed support for is the
establishment of research centers focusing on the issue of alternatives.
The Medical Research Council has taken the lead on this, but progress
has been slow. The Center is to be launched this autumn and its
aim is to set best standard guidelines for the MRC, looking at
issues such as the use of transgenic animals and the statistical
design of experiments. The new best practice center will not itself
work on developing alternatives.
The Committee is also considering whether the government should
promote in vitro research using human tissue.
Source: Research Europe, May 9, 2002
The Commission's Scientific Steering Committee, a senior scientific advisory body, has stated that Europe must maintain facilities for research on non-human primates. The Committee says that the use of non-human primates in research must be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the possible existence of alternatives, ethical considerations and the implications of not carrying out the research. However, it thinks that for certain experiments there are no alternatives to the use of non-human primates. In making its recommendation, the committee stresses that unnecessary, duplicated or redundant research using non-human primates should be avoided at 'all costs'.
There are two other advisory committees addressing this issue: the European Group on Ethics of Sciences and New Technologies, and the Scientific Committee on Animal health and Animal Welfare. Both are preparing statements on related issues.
Source: Research Europe, April 25, 2002
At the Free University of Berlin, a study was carried out comparing advantages and disadvantages of reconstructed epidermis, monolayer cultures of keratinocytes and fibroblasts and excised skin versus animal models and human volunteers.
Skin from human volunteers is eminently
suitable at low cost, needing informed consent from the volunteers.
However, not all compounds can be tested, in particular not the
severe ones.
Excised human skin can be used to test all compounds, is available
at low cost, gives good information and only requires information
to the donor. However, the skin has a limited survival period,
with the barrier function only available for a limited period.
Additional disadvantages are the absence of information about
the skin, pretreatments or the donor's health.
Skin from animals can be used to test all compounds, but in general
the barrier function is less than in humans and the comparability
to humans is bad, with generally more hair follicles, less barrier
function and a different enzyme scheme.
Monolayer cultures of keratinocytes and fibroblasts can only be
used to test water-soluble compounds. The comparability to humans
is limited since only one cell type is present, and the barrier
function is absent. However, they are very sensitive to measurement
of irritation experiments and for the investigation of molecular
mechanisms.
Reconstructed epidermis can be used to test all compounds and
is readily available, but the barrier function is impaired, resulting
in increased permeation rates, transdermal water loss and enhanced
irritation levels. It remains a challenge to further develop reconstructed
skin models with a higher barrier function.
Source: Kleuser et al, NewDrugs pp40: Human keratinocytes and human skin models for drug testing. A copy of the article is available from the IVTIP Secretariat.
At the BIO Conference in June 2002,
Ernst & Young's Global Health Sciences Group launched the
latest of their well-respected regional biotechnology industry
reports.
The theme of the book is very much the inescapable reality of
looking 'beyond borders' and understanding the impact of this
in virtually every activity in which the biotechnology industry
engages. For example, an international perspective is required
not only in biomedical research but also in technology innovation
and commercialisation, intellectual property filing and enforcement,
product development and regulatory approval, public policy, pricing
and reimbursement, and the ethical debate. But also in seeking
capital and investors.
The authors identify the following critical characteristics in
the development of a thriving biotechnology industry:
risk taking culture that encourages entrepreneurial behaviour;
competitive, free market economy;
intellectual property protection;
academic support for technology transfer;
government support for funding basic research, but also tax incentives
public regulatory system that fosters confidence in the safety
and efficacy of new products.
For more information, see:
http://www.ey.com/beyondborders
The global value of pharmaceutical mergers and acquisitions in 2001 almost doubled to USD 61 billion from USD 34 billion in 2000. A total of 334 deals were reported, with 97 in Western Europe, 19 in Eastern Europe, 125 in North America, 84 in Asia/Pacific (most in India, which is anticipating the signing of GATT), and 10 in the rest of the world.
The following key trends were apparent
in 2001:
consolidation of biotech-biotech deals;
a shift in favour of product-based businesses (away from focus
on technology platforms)
acquisition by biotech companies of commercial infrastructure
from pharma companies.
The global top 10 deals in 2001 were:
Immunex/Amgen (16,900 million USD)
Alza/Johnson & Johnson (11,070 million USD)
DuPont Pharmaceuticals/Bristol-Meyers Squibb (7,800 million USD)
Roche (20%)/Novartis (2,788 million USD)
COR Therapeutics/Millennium Pharmaceuticals (2,417 million USD)
ImClone Systems (19.9%)/Bristol-Meyers Squibb (2,007 million USD)
Aviron/MedImmune (1,665 million USD)
Chugai Pharmaceutical/Roche (1,240 million USD)
FH Faulding/Mayne Nickless (1,218 million USD)
Mayne Nickless-Faulding Oral Pharma/Alpharma (660 million USD).
Source: EBR spring 2002, Neal Ransom, PriceWaterhouseCoopers HYPERLINK mailto:neal.j.ransome@uk.pwcglobal.com neal.j.ransome@uk.pwcglobal.com
In June, Genetic Engineering news published a list of the annual top 50 Biotech Companies and the annual Top 10 Pharmaceutical companies for the year 2001. Here we will give the first 10 on both lists, with their market capitalisation in billions of USD:
Top 10 Biotech companies:
Amgen: 52,28 billion USD
Genetech 18,53 billion USD
Serono 17,97 billion USD
Immunex Corp 14,26 billion USD
Genzyme Corp 8,44 billion USD
Idec Pharmaceut. Corp 8,03 billion USD
MedImmune 7,89 billion USD
Chiron Corp 7,39 billion USD
Gilead Sciences 6,38 billion USD
Biogen 6,17 billion USD
Top 10 pharmaceutical companies:
Pfizer 234,1 billion USD
Johnson & Johnson 195,6 billion USD
GlaxoSmithKline 148,6 billion USD
Merck & Co 126,2 billion USD
Novartis AG 106,5 billion USD
Abbot Labs 84,1 billion USD
AstraZeneca 81,5 billion USD
Wyeth 78,6 billion USD
Eli Lilly & Co 76,4 billion USD
Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co 56,9 billion USD
Source; Genetic Engineering News June 2002
On April 24, the Spanish government
has officially opened its Foundation for the Development of Proteomics
and Genomics Research. Its main objective will be to promote genomics
and proteomics research. But the initiative is also intended to
channel the efforts of Spain's biotechnology companies, and to
encourage spin-offs and stimulate venture capital. Companies collaborating
with the foundation in developing research projects will be able
to take advantage of intellectual property resulting from those
projects.
Source: Research Europe, May 9, 2002
Plans to build a new structural genomics
outstation in Grenoble are to go ahead without the financial backing
of industry. The project, a joint venture between the European
Synchrotron Radiation Facility, the Institute Laue-Langevin and
the European Molecular Biology Laboratory was to be financed in
large part by an industrial consortium. However, members of the
consortium are said to have dwindled and its future is uncertain.
However, new support for the project has come from the Institute
for Structural Biology. The new initiative is called the Partnership
for Structural Biology. It is intended that the partnership will
provide Europe with a platform where it can compete with the United
States and Japan in terms of high throughput macro-molecular crystallography.
Source: Research Europe, April 25, 2002
Unmodified human stem cells should not
be patentable, according to the European Group on Ethics in Science
and New Technologies. Such isolated cells are so close to the
human body, to the foetus or to the embryo, they have to be considered
as a form of commercialisation of the human body, says their opinion
published on May 7. Likewise, patents on unmodified stem cell
lines would be too broad, resulting in 'adverse effects on the
aim to support further innovation to the benefit of health care'.
However, the group is not against patenting all stem cells or
stem cell lines. Stem cells which have been modified by in vitro
treatments or genetically modified so that they have acquired
characteristics for specific industrial application should be
patentable. In all cases, applicants for patents involving human
stem cells should declare where the cells came from. Donors should
be informed of the possibility of patenting and they are entitled
to refuse such use.
A cautious approach is called for regarding cloning techniques
for obtaining human embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes.
The opinion can be found on:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/european_group_ethics
VistaGen Therapeutics, Inc. of the USA
is one of the global leaders in the in vitro applications of stem
cell technologies for drug discovery and development. VistaGen's
portfolio of proprietary stem cell technologies and information
products are beginning to be used in the pharmaceutical industry
to accelerate drug development across several therapeutic.
On July 9, 2002, it was announced that the U.S. National Institutes
of Health (NIH) has awarded the company a $199,566 Phase 1 Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant to develop biomathematical
systems to analyse data in VistaGenís in vitro screening
assays.
In the study covered by this new grant, VistaGen scientists will
evaluate genomic and proteomic data generated from ongoing stem-cell
based evaluation of known anti-cancer drugs. Mathematical and
statistical analysis systems will be developed to test existence
and reproducibility of patterns related to toxicology of both
FDA approved compounds and new drug candidates. The informatics
study will be performed in collaboration with Tripos' ( http://www.tripos.com),
a leading provider of discovery chemistry, integrated discovery
software products, software consulting services, and discovery
research services.
The 3R Research Foundation of Switzerland
has recently (May 2002, info bulletin 20) presented the results
of two successful projects concerned with the replacement of the
Mouse Antibody Production (MAP) tests. This MAP test is traditionally
used to screen biological material prior to their use in vivo
on contamination by rodent viruses. Biological materials are serum,
transplantable tumours, cell cultures and hybridoma lines. The
MAP test has several disadvantages, such as the use of animals,
cost and slowness (5-6 weeks). Previous attempts to replace the
MAP test with an in vitro assay using virus isolation in cell
culture were unsatisfactory with respect to virus detection. However,
the newly developed Infectious Microbe PCR Amplification Test
(IMPAT) was able to identify viral DNA directly in vitro. In comparative
studies between the MAP and IMPAT tests, the new test was found
to be more specific and sensitive in most cases than the MAP test.
Other advantages are:
no animals required (replacement);
test-time reduced to 1-2 days;
smaller variability
no risk to animal facility or investigators.
While the MAP test only detects the immune response, the IMPAT detects the presence of nucleic acids from infectious but also from non-infectious, inactivated virus.
Source: 3R Research Foundation, Info Bulletin 20, May
2002. See also www.forschung3r.ch
A copy of the Bulletin may be requested from the IVTIP Secretariat.
Statistical work by the Helsinki Group
on Women in Science has offered proof that gender discrimination
in science is real and widespread. According to a report published
in June, women now constitute the majority of undergraduate students.
Although they remain a minority in some science subjects and in
engineering, they are in the majority in medical and biological
sciences. However, women are a tiny minority of people in top
scientific jobs. See:
http://www.cordis.lu/improving/women/helsinki.htm
Lab-on-a-Chip: micro-electronics for biochemical analysis
In addition to microarrays, work is
in progress to realise fully automated laboratories on a chip
(lab-on-chip). A lab-on-chip will be capable of analysis or synthesis
of biochemicals on a chip, normally performed in a fully equipped
laboratory. Like microarrays, they exist as plates of glass, resins
or silicium, but filled with tiny channels in which reactions
and analyses can take place. The lab-on-chip may also contain
electrodes, micropumps, valves, biosensors or photodiodes.
Source: Technieuws 40, nr. 3-4, 39-48,
http://www.technieuws.org/cgi-twa/twa.pl/Tokyo/235.html
Printed copies of the report can be
obtained by contacting: Ms. Kathy Prout at the World Health Organization
prout@niehs.nih.gov
With the release of supplement 4.3,
the 4th Edition of the European Pharmacopoeia has added 36 new
monographs and chapters on a wide range of subjects, including
human and veterinary vaccines. The 4th edition has been in force
since January 1, 2002 and now contains 1638 specific monographs,
including 103 on vaccines, 28 monographs on the most commonly
used dosage forms, and more than 200 general methods. The 4th
edition is updated 3 times a year.
Source: EDQM news, June 14, 2002
The European Resource Center for Alternatives to animal use in higher education (EURCA) actively promotes the use of animal free models in education through outreach activities and through the following website:
The EURCA database, available on its
website, holds reviews for:
Blood physiology
Frog heart
Langendorff heart
Muscle physiology
Experiments in human Neuromuscular physiology
Simulation of pharmacological experiments on rabbit jejunum and
on the guinea pig ileum
Sniffy - a virtual rat
Vertebrate dissection guide
Nerve Physiology
Soon reviews will be available for:
SimHeart
Cellular respiration
SimMuscle
Anesthesia of Rats
Vertebrate dissection guide - the rat
The rat, a practical dissection guide
Source: NCA News, March 2002
Or contact: Jasmijn de Boo, EURCA, NCA, Yalelaan 17, Utrecht,
The Netherlands. Email: j.deboo@vet.uu.nl
Organisation: http://www.betatechnology.co.uk
Tel: + 44 1302 322 633
Organisation: Ms Alicia Druga, tel + 36 1 169 14 25;
fax: + 361 169 3229
Organisation: http://www.BioArraysEurope.com
Organisation: Congrex Sweden, Tel: + 46 84 59 6600;
fax: + 46 86 61 9125;
email: esgt@congrex.se
Organisation: www.pharma-rd.net
Organization: ESTIV, email: floestiv@tiscalinet.it
or invitox@iss.it
Organization: IVTIP Secretariat: IVTIP@IVTIP.org
Organization: SkinEthic Laboratories: http://www.skinethic.com
Organization: DG Research, tel + 32 295 99 71; fax: + 32 2 29582 20;
email: rtd-conference2002@cec.eu.int;
web: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/conferences/2002
Organisation: JAACT. Web: http://www.tuat.jp/~jaact02/
Organization: Finish Bioindustries/Sitra/Tekes. Tel: + 358 91728 43 14.
Web: http://www.biotechhelsinki.com
Organisation: www.biovision.org
Organization: www.sivb.org
Organization: ESACT, www.esact.org or
+ 34 932 388 777
Organization: ECB11, Tel + 41 61 686 28 28; fax: + 41 61 686 2185;
email: info@ecb11.ch;
web:http://www.ecb11.ch
Organisation: University of Tampere, Ms Hanna Tahti, tel + 3583215 6672;
fax: + 358 3215 6170;
email: :blha-ta@uta.fi;
web: www.uta.fi/fst