Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing

Frazier, J.M. and Bradlow, J.A. (1989). Technical Problems Associated with In Vitro Toxicity Testing Systems. Technical Report 1. Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Baltimore, MA. 

Rylander, L.A., Gandolfi, A.J. and Brendel, K. (1985). Inhibition of organic acid/base transport in isolated rabbit renal tubules by nephrotoxins. In In Vitro Toxicology. A progress report from Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Vol. 3 (Goldberg, A.M., Ed.). Mary Ann Liebert, New York, pp. 235-247. 

The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) maintains the alternatives to animal testing Web site (Altweb 2007), where the full text of Russell and Burch s book is freely available for download. 

Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT). Johns Hopkins University. http //caat.jhsph.edu. 

The Hopkins Center for Alternatives for Animal Testing estimates that approximately 17 to 22 million animals are used annually in U.S. laboratories and that testing of a new chemical will cost approximately 1.5 million [16]. Other statistical data have estimated that at least 70 million animals are used annually in the U.S. alone for toxicity testing as well as biomedical and behavioral research [17]. Worldwide, this figure may be as high as 250 million animals [18]. 

Before an in vitro method can be accepted as a replacement for animal testing, it must undergo a validation process. The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was created to coordinate and initiate validation exercises (Balls, 1994). 

---