Bioética de la investigación preclínica en las ciencias biomédicas Translated title: Bioethics of preclinical research in biomedical sciences

The number of animals used in research has increased with the advancement of research and development in medical technology. Every year, millions of experimental animals are used all over the world. The pain, distress and death experienced by the animals during scientific experiments have been a debating issue for a long time. Besides the major concern of ethics, there are few more disadvantages of animal experimentation like requirement of skilled manpower, time consuming protocols and high cost. Various alternatives to animal testing were proposed to overcome the drawbacks associated with animal experiments and avoid the unethical procedures. A strategy of 3 Rs (i.e. reduction, refinement and replacement) is being applied for laboratory use of animals. Different methods and alternative organisms are applied to implement this strategy. These methods provide an alternative means for the drug and chemical testing, up to some levels. A brief account of these alternatives and advantages associated is discussed in this review with examples. An integrated application of these approaches would give an insight into minimum use of animals in scientific experiments.

The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.