z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Bioassay bashing is bad science.
Author(s) -
F. M. Johnson,
James Huff
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
environmental health perspectives
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.257
H-Index - 282
eISSN - 1552-9924
pISSN - 0091-6765
DOI - 10.1289/ehp.110-a736
Subject(s) - download , library science , license , medicine , political science , world wide web , computer science , law
The Spheres of Influence, “Assessing Assays” (Schmidt 2002), in the May 2002 issue of EHP criticizes the National Toxicology Program rodent bioassay (NTPRB) without discussing its importance in regulation and public health. The Spheres article (Schmidt 2002) does not express concern for the validity of alternative transgenic methods proposed to replace the NTPRB for detecting carcinogens. By focusing on the limitations of the NTPRB without mentioning limitations of transgenic alternatives, Spheres creates the impression that transgenics are superior. Attempting to supplant the rodent bioassay with various mutation tests, DNA repair tests, cell transformation tests, and many others is a history of failure (Johnson 2000, 2001; Johnson and Snell 1986; Rall et al. 1987). The Spheres article (Schmidt 2002) does not provide any evidence to persuade us that transgenics will change that history. To illustrate bias, Spheres (Schmidt 2002) states that

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom