English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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

Bioassay bashing is bad science.