Training needs for toxicity testing in the 21st century: A survey-informed analysis

Alternatives to Laboratory Animals

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 313-320

  Lapenna, Silvia ^a,c   Gabbert, Silke ^b   Worth, Andrew ^a  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Alternative method; Hazard and risk assessment of chemicals; Qualitative data analysis; Stakeholder requirements; Training

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER MODEL; CONTINUING EDUCATION; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE BASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; TOXICITY TESTING; TRAINING;

EID: 84873538779     PISSN: 02611929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026119291204000604     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. NRC (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy, 196pp. Washinton, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
2. Collins, F.S., Gray, G.M. & Bucher, J.R. (2008). Toxicology. Transforming environmental health protection. Science, New York 319, 906-907. (Pubitemid 351263750)
3. Andersen, M.E., Al-Zoughool, M., Croteau, M., Westphal, M. & Krewski, D. (2010). The future of toxicity testing. Journal of Toxicology & Envir - onmental Health, Part B 13, 163-196.
4. Hartung, T. & McBride, M. (2011). Food for thought... On mapping the human toxome. ALTEX 28, 83-93.
5. Boekelheide, K. & Andersen, M.E. (2010). A mechanistic redefinition of adverse effects - a key step in the toxicity testing paradigm shift. ALTEX 27, 243-252.
6. Georgopoulos, P.G. (2008). A multiscale approach for assessing the interactions of environmental and biological systems in a holistic health risk assessment framework. Water, Air & Soil Pollution Focus 8, 3-21.
7. Pavan, M. & Worth, A.P. (2008). Publicly-accessible QSAR software tools developed by the Joint Research Centre. SAR & QSAR in Environmental Research 19, 785-799.
8. Gabbert, S. & Benighaus, C. (2012). Quo vadis integrated testing strategies? Experiences and observations from the work floor. Journal of Risk Research 15, 583-599.
9. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, 284pp. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Aldine Transaction.
10. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (Introducing Qualitative Methods Series), 224pp. Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications Ltd.
11. Hallberg, L.R-M. (2006). The "core category" of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-being 1, 141-148.
12. Ritchie, J. & Spencer, L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Analysing Qualitative Data (ed. A. Bryman & R.G. Burgess), pp. 173-194. London, UK: Routledge.
13. Krewski, D., Westphal, M., Al-Zoughool, M., Croteau, M.C. & Andersen, M.E. (2011). New directions in toxicity testing. Annual Review of Public Health 32, 161-178.
14. US EPA Risk Assessment Forum (2005). Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 151pp. Washing - ton, DC, USA: US Environmental Protection Agency. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/ publications/pdfs/CANCER-GUIDELINES-FINAL -3-25-05.PDF (Accessed 26.11.12).
15. Ankley, G.T., Bennett, R.S., Erickson, R.J., Hoff, D.J., Hornung, M.W., Johnson, R.D., Mount, D.R., Nichols, J.W., Russom, C.L., Schmieder, P.K., Serrrano, J.A., Tietge, J.E. & Villeneuve, D.L. (2010). Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 29, 730-741.
16. Schultz, T.W. (2010). Adverse outcome pathways: A way of linking chemical structure to in vivo toxicological hazards. In In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications (ed. M.T.D. Cronin & J.C. Madden), pp. 346-371. Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.