A rabbit allegedly going through a Draize test. The authenticity of the subject of this photograph is in question. [1]

The Draize Test is an animal test devised in 1944 by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) toxicologist John H. Draize and coworkers. Initially for testing cosmetics, the procedure today typically involves applying 0.5 ml or 0.5 g of a test substance to an animal's eye or skin for four hours then observing the results for up to 14 days, for signs of erythema and edema in the skin test, and redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or blindness in the eyes. The test subject is commonly an albino rabbit. According to the National Anti-Vivisection Society, after the test, the animals are killed.[3] ImageMetadata File history File links Draizerabbit. ... ImageMetadata File history File links Draizerabbit. ... For other uses, see Animal testing (disambiguation). ... “FDA” redirects here. ... Toxicology (from the Greek words toxicon and logos) is the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms. ... Erythema is an abnormal redness of the skin caused by capillary congestion. ... This page is about the condition called edema. ... Albinism is a genetic condition resulting in a lack of pigmentation in the eyes, skin and hair. ... For other uses, see Rabbit (disambiguation). ...

The tests are controversial, considered by some to be an example of animal cruelty, as well as unscientific because of the differences between rabbit and human eyes, and because of the subjective nature of the visual evaluations. In 1971, toxicologists Carrol Weil and Robert Scala of Carnegie Mellon University distributed three test substances for comparative analysis to 24 different university and state laboratories. The laboratories returned significantly different evaluations, from non-irritating to severely irritating, for the same substances (Weil and Scala 1971). The study predates the implementation in 1981 of the modern Draize protocol. A 2004 study by the U.S. Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods reported that, using the modern Draize skin test, the "underprediction of an irritant as a mild irritant ranged from 10.3% to 38.7%, an irritant as a non-irritant ... from 0% to 0.01%, [and] a mild irritant as a nonirritant ... from 3.7% to 5.5%." [4] (pdf). Cruelty to animals refers to treatment which causes unacceptable suffering to animals. ... Toxicology (from the Greek words toxicos and logos [1]) is the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms [2]. It is the study of symptoms, mechanisms, treatments and detection of poisoning, especially the poisoning of people. ... Carnegie Mellon University is a private research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. ...

The FDA considers the test to play an important role in safety determination for regulated products, stating "to date, no single test, or battery of tests, has been accepted by the scientific community as a replacement [for] ... the Draize test" [5] Moreover, chemicals are currently not Draize tested on animals if they have already shown adverse effects in vitro [6], thereby reducing the number and severity of tests carried out.

Due to its controversial nature, the use of the Draize test in the U.S. and Europe has declined in recent years and is sometimes modified so that anaesthetics are administered and lower doses of the test substances used. [7] According to MSPCA-Angell, the second oldest humane society in the United States: "Animal use for eye irritancy tests has fallen by an estimated 85 to 90 percent as computer use for storing and exchanging information has increased ..." [8] Anesthesia (AE), also anaesthesia (BE), is the process of blocking the perception of pain and other sensations. ...

Background

John Henry Draize (1900–1992) obtained a BSc in chemistry then a PhD in pharmacology, studying hyperthyroidism. He then joined the University of Wyoming and investigated plants poisonous to cattle, other livestock, and people. The U.S. Army recruited Draize in 1935 to investigate the effects of mustard gas and other chemical agents. Hyperthyroidism (or overactive thyroid gland) is the clinical syndrome caused by an excess of circulating free thyroxine (T4) or free triiodothyronine (T3), or both. ... The University of Wyoming is a land-grant university located in Laramie, Wyoming, situated on Wyomings high Laramie Plains, at an elevation of 7,200 feet (2194 m), between the the Laramie and Snowy Range mountains. ... Airborne exposure limit 0. ...

In 1938, after a number of reports of coal tar in mascara leading to blindness, The U.S. Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, placing cosmetics under regulatory control (Wilhelmus 2001). The following year Draize joined the FDA, and was soon promoted to head of the Dermal and Ocular Toxicity Branch where he was charged with developing methods for testing the side effects of cosmetic products. This work culminated in a report by Draize, his laboratory assistant, Geoffrey Woodard, and division chief, Herbert Calvery, describing how to assess acute, intermediate, and chronic exposure to cosmetics by applying compounds to the skin, penis, and eyes of rabbits (Draize et al 1944). Coal tar is the liquid by-product of the distillation of coal to make coke. ... Mascara is a cosmetic used to darken, thicken and define eyelashes, typically used by women. ... “Make-up” redirects here. ...

Following this report, the techniques were used by the FDA to evaluate the safety of substances such as insecticides and sunscreens and later adopted to screen many other compounds. By Draize's retirement in 1963, and despite never having personally attached his name to any technique, irritancy procedures were commonly known as "the Draize test" (Kay and Calandra 1962). To distinguish the target organ, the tests are now often referred to as "the Draize eye test" and "the Draize skin test". It has been suggested that ovicide be merged into this article or section. ... Sunscreen (also known as sunblock, suntan lotion) is a lotion, spray or other topical product that helps protect the skin from the suns ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and which reduces sunburn and other skin damage, with the goal lowering your risk of skin cancer. ...

Draize's 1944 paper is one of the most cited publications in toxicology, with more than one journal citation per week during the last quarter of the 20th century. He received the tenth medal from the American Society of Cosmetic Chemists for his work (Wilhelmus 2001). Toxicology (from the Greek words toxicos and logos [1]) is the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms [2]. It is the study of symptoms, mechanisms, treatments and detection of poisoning, especially the poisoning of people. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ...

However, by the 1960s and 1970s, Draize's technique was coming under criticism from animal rights activists, initially by Peter Singer then under a campaign driven by Henry Spira. Such protests are widely credited with encouraging cosmetics companies to replace the Draize eye test with in vitro methods, and in some cases, to discontinue animal testing altogether (Holden 1989). Consequently, the number of rabbits used for the Draize eye test fell by over 87% during the 1980s (Holden 1988). For other persons named Peter Singer, see Peter Singer (disambiguation). ... Henry Spira (June 19, 1927 – September 12, 1998) was a prominent animal rights activist, and architect of the movement in the United States to stop the use of animals in experiments. ...

Pro-testing description of the test

According to the British Research Defence Society, a group representing 5,000 animal researchers and institutions in the UK, the Draize eye test is now a "very mild test," [9] in which small amounts of substances are used and are washed out of the eye at the first sign of irritation. The UK Home Office has published guidance and minimum severity protocols for the procedure. [10] The Research Defence Society is a British lobby group reportedly funded by the pharmaceutical industry and universities. ...

In a letter on January 12, 2006 to the science journal Nature, written to refute an article saying that the Draize test had not changed much since the 1940's, Nobel prize winner Professor Sir Andrew Huxley described the test as follows: "A substance expected from its chemical nature to be seriously painful must not be tested in this way; the test is permissible only if the substance has already been shown not to cause pain when applied to skin, and in vitro pre-screening tests are recommended, such as a test on an isolated and perfused eye. Permission to carry out the test on several animals is given only if the test has been performed on a single animal and a period of 24 hours has been allowed for injury to become evident." [11] “Natural” redirects here. ... Andrew Huxley at Trinity College, Cambridge, July 2005 Family tree Sir Andrew Fielding Huxley, OM, FRS (born 22 November 1917, Hampstead, London) is an English physiologist and biophysicist, who won the 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work with Alan Lloyd Hodgkin on the basis of nerve...

Anti-vivisectionist description of the test

According to the American National Anti-Vivisectionist Society, the Draize eye irritancy test and the Draize skin irritancy test cause "extreme discomfort and pain" to the animals involved.

In the Draize test for eye irritancy, according to the society's website, solutions of products are applied directly into the animals' eyes, which can cause "intense burning, itching and pain." Clips are placed on the rabbits' eyelids to hold them open during the test period, which can last several days, during which time the rabbits are placed in restraining stocks. The chemicals often leave the eyes "ulcerated and bleeding."

In the Draize test for skin irritancy, the test substances are applied to skin that is shaved and abraded (several layers of skin are removed with sticky tape), then covered with plastic sheeting. The test solutions may cause "intense pain, burning and itching." [12]

Alleged differences between rabbit and human eyes

How the Draize eye test is conducted; image courtesy of 3R Training Switzerland [2]

Dr. Kirk Wilhelmus, professor in the Department of Ophthalmology at Baylor College of Medicine, conducted a comprehensive review of the Draize eye test in 2001. He reported that the anatomy and biochemistry of the rabbit eye is not the same as that of the human eye, and that the low tear production, blink frequency, and differences in ocular surface area indicate that testing substances on rabbits might not predict the effects on humans. However, he noted "that eyes of rabbits are generally more susceptible to irritating substances than the eyes of humans" making them a conservative model of the human eye. Wilhelmus concluded "The Draize eye test ... has assuredly prevented harm" to humans, but predicts it will be "supplanted as in vitro and clinical alternatives emerge for assessing irritancy of the ocular surface" (Wilhelmus 2001). Image File history File links No higher resolution available. ... Image File history File links No higher resolution available. ... Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) is ranked among the top Schools of medicine in the United States. ...

Ophthalmologist and antivivisectionist [13] Stephen R. Kaufman writes: "As a Chief Resident, I have three years of experience at Bellevue Hospital (an Eye Trauma Center), where I have treated scores of toxic eye injuries in the emergency room. I have never used Draize data to assist the care of a patient... I know of no case in which another ophthalmologist found Draize data useful." He argues that rabbits are used because they have large eyes, are easy to handle, and are inexpensive. But he points to what he says are significant differences between rabbits' eyes and human eyes: [14] This article is about the branch of medicine. ...

• The rabbit epithelial (surface) layer is 10 times more permeable to hydrophilic solutes than the human eye.
• Bowman's membrane (the next layer) is six times thicker in man.
• The rabbit's threshold of pain in the eye is much higher than that of humans, so irritating substances are not washed away as readily.
• Rabbits have a less efficient tearing system than humans.
• Unlike people, rabbits have a nictitating (winking) membrane (third eyelid), which has an unclear effect on elimination of foreign materials.
• Humans develop corneal epithelial vacuoles in response to some toxic substances, but rabbits do not.
• The rabbit mean corneal thickness is .37 mm, while that of man is .51 mm.
• Rabbits are more susceptible to damage (alkaline) materials, because the pH of their aqueous humor is .82 compared to .71-.73 for man. ^{[citation needed]}
• The cornea represents 25% of the rabbit eye surface area, but only 7% of the surface area in man.

Due to these differences and the widespread concern at the use of animals, industry and regulatory bodies responsible for public health are actively developing animal free tests to reduce the requirement for Draize testing. However, a recent review in the journal Alternatives To Laboratory Animals concluded, "despite extensive efforts ... there is still no in vitro method that is fully validated as a regulatory replacement" (Curren and Harbell 2002). The adjective hydrophilic describes something that likes water (from Greek hydros = water; philos = friend). ... “Hurting” redirects here. ... Many species of land animals have a nictitating membrane, sometimes (but incorrectly) spelled nicitating membrane, which can move across the eyeball to give the sensitive eye structures additional protection in particular circumstances. ... The cornea is the transparent front part of the eye that covers the iris, pupil, and anterior chamber, providing most of an eyes optical power [1]. Together with the lens, the cornea refracts light and, as a result, helps the eye to focus. ... The common (Arrhenius) definition of a base is a chemical compound that either donates hydroxide ions or absorbs hydrogen ions when dissolved in water. ...

See also

Animal rights Activists Greg Avery · David Barbarash Rod Coronado · Barry Horne Ronnie Lee · Keith Mann Ingrid Newkirk · Andrew Tyler Jerry Vlasak · Robin Webb For the album by Moby, see Animal Rights (album). ... Image File history File links Olive_baboon1. ... Greg Avery (born 1963), also known as Greg Jennings and Greg Harrison, is a British animal rights activist and co-founder of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), an international campaign to force the closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), a controversial animal-testing company with bases in Huntingdon, England, and... David Barbarash is the North American press officer for the Animal Liberation Front. ... Rod Coronado Rodney Adam Coronado is an American eco-anarchist and animal rights activist who has been convicted of arson, conspiracy and other crimes in connection with his activism but now advocates non-violent action. ... Barry Horne Barry Horne was a British animal rights activist who died of kidney failure in Ronkswood Hospital, Worcester on November 5, 2001, following a series of four hunger strikes while serving an 18-year sentence for planting incendiary devices. ... Ronnie Lee is a British animal rights activist, and founder of the Animal Liberation Front. ... Keith Mann is a British animal-rights campaigner, believed to be a senior Animal Liberation Front activist. ... PETAs president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk Ingrid Newkirk (born July 11, 1949) is a British-born animal rights activist, author, and president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the worlds largest animal rights organization. ... Andrew Tyler is the director of Animal Aid, the UKs largest animal rights organization. ... Jerry Vlasak is a U.S. physician and prominent member of several controversial nonprofit organizations, including Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. ... Robin Webb appearing on Channel 4s Dispatches Robin Webb runs the Animal Liberation Press Office in the UK. He was previously a member of the ruling council of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), and a director of Animal Aid. ... Groups/campaigns Animal Aid Animal Liberation Front Animal liberation movement Animal Rights Militia BUAV Great Ape Project Justice Department PETA Physicians Committee Primate Freedom Project Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs SPEAK Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Viva! Animal Aid logo Animal Aid is the United Kingdoms largest animal rights group and one of the longest established in the world, having been founded in 1977. ... Beagles stolen by British ALF activists from a testing laboratory owned by the Boots Group. ... For the concept, see Animal rights The animal liberation movement or animal rights movement, sometimes called the animal personhood movement and animal advocacy movement, is the global movement of activists, academics, lawyers, campaigns, and organized groups who oppose the use of non-human animals in research, as food, as clothing... The Animal Rights Militia (ARM) is a name used by animal-rights activists who are prepared to carry out acts of violence against human beings. ... The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection is a pressure group based near Highbury Corner in North London, United Kingdom that campaigns peacefully against vivisection. ... The logo of The Great Ape Project, which aims to expand moral equality to great apes, and to foster greater understanding of them by humans. ... The Justice Department is a militant animal-rights organization, set up in Britain in 1993, and active there and in the United States. ... People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals logo People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in the United States. ... The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research. ... The Primate Freedom Project is a 501(c)3 not for profit grassroots abolitionist animal rights organization based in Atlanta, Georgia. ... A dying guinea pig. ... SPEAK, the Voice for the Animals is a British animal rights campaign that aims to end animal experimentation and vivisection in the UK. Its current focus is opposition to a new animal testing center being built by Oxford University. ... A monkey inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the United States. ... Viva!, or Vegetarians International Voice For Animals, Founded by Juliet Gellatley in 1995, is an animal-rights based organisation which promotes vegetarianism and veganism. ... Issues Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Animal rights Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act Animal testing · Bile bear Factory farming Great Ape research ban International trade in primates Nafovanny Non-human primate experiments Open rescue Operation Backfire Speciesism Please wikify (format) this article or section as suggested in the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. ... For the album by Moby, see Animal Rights (album). ... The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (ASPA) is a law passed by the U.K. parliament in 1986, which regulates the use of laboratory animals in the U.K. Fundamentally, actions that have the potential of causing pain, distress or lasting harm to animals are illegal in the U.K. under... For other uses, see Animal testing (disambiguation). ... A bile bear in Huizhou Farm, Vietnam. ... The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed. ... A Great Ape research ban, or severe restrictions on the use of non-human great apes in research, is currently in place in the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany and Japan, and has been proposed in Austria. ... The international trade in primates sees 32,000 wild-caught primates sold on the international market every year. ... Nafovannys maternity clinic. ... Filmed by PETA, Covance primate-testing lab, Vienna, Virginia, 2004-5. ... Open rescue is a term for a form of direct action practiced by certain animal rights and animal welfare activists. ... Operation Backfire is an ongoing multi-agency criminal investigation, led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), into violent acts in the name of animal rights and environmental causes in the United States [1]. // Background In 2004 the FBI merged seven independent investigations from its Portland, Oregon field office and... The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed. ... Cases Britches Cambridge University primates Covance · Huntingdon Life Sciences Pit of despair · Silver Spring monkeys Unnecessary Fuss Britches after being removed from the laboratory by the Animal Liberation Front Britches was the name given by researchers to a stumptail macaque monkey who was born into a breeding colony at the University of California, Riverside in March 1985. ... A marmoset inside Cambridge University, filmed by BUAV The use of primates in experiments at Cambridge University is controversial, first coming to widespread public attention in the UK following undercover investigations lasting ten months in 1998 by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), the results of which... Covance (NYSE: CVD), formerly Hazleton Laboratories, with headquarters in Princeton, New Jersey, is one of the worlds largest and most comprehensive drug development services companies, according to its own website, with annual revenues over $1 billion, global operations in 17 countries, and approximately 6,700 employees worldwide. ... Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is a contract animal-testing company founded in 1952 in England, now with facilities in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire and Eye, Suffolk in the UK; New Jersey in the U.S.; and in Japan. ... Harry Harlows pit of despair The pit of despair, or vertical chamber, was a device used in experiments conducted on rhesus macaque monkeys during the 1970s by American comparative psychologist Harry Harlow and his students at the University of Wisconsin. ... The Silver Spring monkeys were 17 monkeys kept in small wire cages inside the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, by Dr. Edward Taub, who was researching regeneration of severed nerves with a grant from the National Institute of Health (NIH). ... Unnecessary Fuss is the name of a film produced by Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), showing footage shot inside the University of Pennsylvanias Head Injury Clinic in Philadelphia, described by the university as the longest standing and most respected center... Writers/advocates Steven Best · Stephen R.L. Clark Gary Francione · Gill Langley Tom Regan · Richard D. Ryder Peter Singer · Steven M. Wise Image:Steven best. ... Dr. Stephen Clark Stephen Richard Lyster Clark (born October 30, 1945) is a British philosopher and international authority on animal rights, currently professor of philosophy and Leverhulme Research Fellow at the University of Liverpool. ... Gary Lawrence Francione (1954) is an American law professor at Rutgers University. ... This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedias deletion policy. ... Tom Regan (born November 28, 1938 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is an American philosopher and animal-rights activist. ... Richard D. Ryder (born 1940) is a British psychologist who, after performing psychology experiments on animals, began to speak out against the practice, and became one of the pioneers of the modern animal liberation and animal rights movements. ... For other persons named Peter Singer, see Peter Singer (disambiguation). ... Steven M. Wise is the author of Though the Heavens May Fall, a book concerning the 18th century trial in England which led to the abolition of slavery. ... Films Behind the Mask · Earthlings Behind the Mask: The Story Of The People Who Risk Everything To Save Animals is a 2006 documentary film about the Animal Liberation Front. ... Earthlings is a 2005 multi-award winning documentary written, produced and directed by Shaun Monson and co-produced by Persia White. ... Categories Animal testing Animal Liberation Front Animal rights Animal rights movement Other templates Articles related to animal testing This box: view • talk • edit

• LD₅₀ test
• Animal testing
• Vivisection
• British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• alternative: in-vitro IRE Test (Irritable Eye Test)
• Bovine Cornea Opacity/Permeability Test - http://www.mbresearch.com/bcop.htm

An LD50 test being administered In toxicology, the LD50 or colloquially semilethal dose of a particular substance is a measure of how much constitutes a lethal dose. ... For other uses, see Animal testing (disambiguation). ... Etymologically, Vivisection refers to the dissection of, or any cutting or surgery upon, a living organism. ... The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection is a pressure group based near Highbury Corner in North London, United Kingdom that campaigns peacefully against vivisection. ... People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals logo People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights organization based in the United States. ... Wiktionary has a definition of: In vitro In vitro (Latin: within glass) means within a test tube, or, more generally, outside a living organism or cell. ...

References

• Curren, R.D. & Harbell, J.W. (2002) Ocular safety: a silent (in vitro) success story. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2, 69-74.
• Draize, J.H., Woodard, G. & Calvery, H.O. (1944) Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J. Pharmacol. and Exp. Therapeutics. 82, 377–390.
• Holden, C. (1988) Much work but slow going on alternatives to Draize test. Science 242, 185–186.
• Holden, C. (1989) Cosmetics firms drop Draize test. Science 245, 125.
• Kaufman, Stephen R. "Problems with the Draize Test". Americans for Medical Advancement.
• Kay, J.H. & Calandra, J.C. (1962) Interpretation of eye irritation tests. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 13, 281–289.
• Weil, D.S. & Scala, R.A. (1971) Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 19, 276-360.
• Wilhelmus, K. R. (2001). The Draize eye test. Surv. Ophthalmol. 45, 493–515.

Further reading

• Clelatt, KN (Ed): Textbook of Veterinary Ophthalmology. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia. 1981.
• Prince JH, Diesem CD, Eglitis I, Ruskell GL: Anatomy and Histology of the Eye and Orbit in Domestic Animals. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1960.
• Saunders LZ, Rubin LF: Ophthalmic Pathology in Animals. S. Karger, New York, 1975.
• Swanston DW: Eye irritancy testing. In: Balls M, Riddell RJ, Warden AN (Eds). Animals and Alternatives in Toxicity Testing. Academic Press, New York, 1983, pp. 337-367.
• Buehler EV, Newmann EA: A comparison of eye irritation in monkeys and rabbits. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 6:701-710:1964.
• Sharpe R: The Draize test-motivations for change. Fd Chem Toxicol 23:139-143:1985.
• Freeberg FE, Hooker DT, Griffith JF: Correlation of animal eye test data with human experience for household products: an update. J Toxicol-Cut & Ocular Toxicol 5:115-123:1986.
• Griffith JF, Freeberg FE: Empirical and experimental bases for selecting the low volume eye irritation test as the validation standard for in vitro methods. In: Goldber AM (Ed): In Vitro Toxicology: Approaches to Validation. New York, Mary Ann Libert, 1987, pp. 303-311.
• Shopsis C, Borenfreund E, Stark DM: Validation studies on a battery of potential in vitro alternatives to the Draize test. In: Goldberg AM (Ed): In Vitro Toxicology: Approaches to Validation. New York. Mary Ann Liebert, 1987, pp. 31-44.
• Maurice D: Direct toxicity to the cornea: a nonspecific process? In: Goldberg AM (Ed): In vivo Toxicology: Approaches to Validation. New York. Mary Ann Liebert 1987, pp. 91-93.
• Leighton J, Nassauer J, Tchao R, Verdone J: Development of a procedure using the chick egg as an alternative to the Draize rabbit test. In: Goldberg AM (Ed): Product Safety Evaluation. New York. Mary Ann Liebert, 1983, pp. l65-177.
• Gordon VC, Bergman HC: The EYETEX-MPA system. Presented at the Symposium, Progress in In Vitro Technology, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, November 44, 1987.
• Hertzfeld HR, Myers TD: The economic viability of in vitro testing techniques. In: Goldberg AM (Ed): In Vitro Toxicology. New York. Mary Ann Liebert, 1987, pp. 189-202.