title: Perspectives on alternatives to the eye irritation test: industry, public interest, government.
abstract: Government mandates are requiring serious consideration of alternatives to animal testing. For eye irritation testing, many non-whole animal alternatives exist that now need to be assessed as to their validity in replacing the animal model. The best promise for identifying useful alternatives comes from using both statistical and biological factors to evaluate results from formal validation studies. Industry submissions of side-by-side animal and alternative test results are also important. Empirical test results should be scrutinized first; mechanistic studies should follow, as needed. Co-operation is required by all parties to develop internationally harmonized test protocols and hazard classification systems.
authors.affiliation: Procter & Gamble Company Ltd, Egham, Surrey, UK.
authors.forename: L H
authors.initials: LH
authors.lastname: Bruner
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Spira
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Balls
authors.forename: R N
authors.initials: RN
authors.lastname: Hill
mesh_terms: D000826:Animal Testing Alternatives / Q000379:methods*; D000818:Animals; D002617:Chemical Industry; D005062:European Union; D005123:Eye / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000473:pathology; D006076:Government; D007509:Irritants / Q000633:toxicity*; D017150:Public Sector; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D007509:Irritants