In U.S., Few Alternatives To Testing On Animals

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals distributes this photo to bolster their argument that animals used to test consumer products die unnecessarily.

"Some animal tests haven't changed in 60 years," said Thomas Hartung, head of the European group. "The tests are frozen in time. This is not science. Science is always moving ahead."

Hartung, who helped write the papers discussed in last summer's e-mail, said he was not surprised by the response from some U.S. scientists: "When you say something new, there is resistance to change."

Of the 34 alternative tests accepted for use in Europe, only a handful have been approved by the U.S. panel and are used by regulatory agencies. The small number has fostered a perception among some European scientists and officials that U.S. scientists are more comfortable with animal tests and do not trust their work.

"It is something difficult to prove," said Manfred Liebsch, a German scientist in charge of alternative tests at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin. "My perception . . . is based on nothing but a serious gut feeling and the fact that almost all of ICCVAM's activities have in fact been slowing down everything."

In his statement, Stokes said, "The ICCVAM process is very rigorous." As a result, "alternative test methods evaluated in Europe often may need to be reevaluated in the . . . United States."

Last June, the National Research Council, the scientific advisory arm of the National Academies, called for a fundamental rethinking of the traditional methods used to assess the risk of chemicals and toxins.

"I think ICCVAM is being leapfrogged by the science," said Chad B. Sandusky, a former Environmental Protection Agency scientist who now directs research for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "I've sort of written them off."