Most Popular in:
Considering Test Methods’ Impact on Your Brand
By: Brian Dell, Celsis Analytical Services
Posted: December 7, 2009, from the December 2009 issue of GCI Magazine.
page 4 of 4A final significant benefit of in vitro testing is the high lot-to-lot reproducibility and consistency of test results. Many examples of variability have been noted when animals are used in testing. In fact, the biggest criticism of the Draize test is that it is considered unreliable and imprecise—the range of dermal responses between test animals extends from no effect to a very drastic skin irritation that includes necrosis. Studies suggest that the Draize test is only effective as a crude tool to distinguish irritants from non-irritants. With the introduction of validated in vitro models, such as those already mentioned, more consistent and reproducible testing is possible.
In conclusion, in vitro test methods deliver enhanced reproducibility and consistency relative to animal testing, and are, consequently, gaining greater acceptance as strategic and necessary tools to reduce, refine and replace the use of animals in product testing.
As global brand owners strive to deliver regulatory-compliant products to market in ever shorter time frames, in vitro methods are not only viable alternatives to animal testing, they are strategic tools that can significantly impact product development timelines and economic outcomes of the companies that use them.
Brian Dell is the associate director, biology, at Celsis Analytical Services—an international provider of innovative life science products and laboratory services to the pharmaceutical and consumer products industries.