!

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014

Background Paper

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

1

!

1

Executive Summary

The Lush Prize, now in its third year, awards and encourages individuals ororganisations who have contributed to its global initiative to end animal testing in thefields of science, public awareness, lobbying, training and finally young researchers
who wish to develop a career in animal-free toxicology. The total yearly prize fund is£250,000. The 2014 ‘Young Researcher’ category of the Lush Prize, as in previous
years welcomes nominations from early career scientists who are keen to progressin research without animal testing and this year, the award offers four £12,500
bursaries, to reward research and development specifically in methods of entire
replacement of animals in toxicity testing. To date, Lush Prize is pleased to haveawarded eight winners from six countries a total of £100,000 from the Young
Researcher fund. As in previous years, the research behind the Lush Prize is also
important in recognising individuals, campaigning organisations or research institutes
who might not otherwise be nominated for their achievements.

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

2

!

2

Methodology

This research paper is based on the following:• A brief review of last years’ findings• Where are we now? The current situation, developments and key issues
regarding toxicity testing in animals• The key players in the field – the ethical early career scientists• A review of organisations, research institutes, public bodies and societies who
provide a network of educational and career opportunities for young researchers• The way forward for the Young Researcher Prize and it’s links to the Training
Prize category
A note on terminology; Lush Prize refers to testing without animals as ‘non-animal’
methods. They are validated, scientifically robust methods of safety testing in theirown right. The use of terms such as ‘alternatives’ or ‘replacement’ methods (while
useful for clarity sometimes) may suggest that animal testing is the ‘gold standard’ ofsafety testing, when much of the scientific industry along with a wealth of research
evidence confirms that, aside from the suffering involved, animal tests do not reliably
predict human responses. In addition, the term ‘alternatives’ is also used to describe
the 3Rs methods, previously summarised as follows:• Refinement: minimise suffering and distress to animals• Reduction: minimise the number of animals used
• Replacement: avoid the use of living animals
As in previous years, the Lush Prize uses a 'replacement filter'. Whilst reduction or
refinement methods are positive steps, they are not achievements. Therefore, LushPrize considers only the final ‘R’ (replacement) to be a genuine alternative as theother 2Rs still involve animals. This also aligns with the Lush Prize eligibility criteria
which outline the ‘1R of replacement’ rather than refinement or reduction.

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

3

!

3

A brief review of last year’s findings

To discuss the relevance of the Young Researcher prize, a number of key animal
protection organisations have been contacted and interviewed during previous
research for the Lush Prize. Some of these contacts are quoted and provide useful
updates throughout this paper.
As highlighted in previous Lush Prize research, the key messages remain the same;
although the acceptance and recognition of new technologies is growing at anencouraging rate, animal-free toxicology is still the ‘less travelled’ path and any early
career researcher trying to progress in this area is likely to meet at least someresistance or challenges along the way. That said, the environment for discussion ofalternatives to animal use is expanding, therefore it is vital to be persistent andremain true to one’s values in pursuing career and networking opportunities. A very
proactive attitude is needed- ethical scientists must seek out their chances, but the
rewards can be hugely successful.
It is also clear from previous Lush Prize papers that continuing to promote the antianimal testing message to all relevant individuals in the young/early career
researcher field, as well as communicating at an earlier stage of education is vital.
One of the key positive findings from interviews with previous Young Researcher
prize winners is that ‘young scientists don’t always have the prejudices about animal
testing being the ‘best’ way of doing things’.1 An unbiased view and fresh
perspective on cutting edge science is essential, combined with raising awarenessearlier in the educational system. There is also a strong link between the Young
Researcher and Training prizes, as the awards are relevant to those involved in the
education of a number of audiences, from children in early stage schooling throughGCSE/A level to undergraduate and through postgraduate level and beyond. Theseissues are discussed later in this paper and it is recommended that the Young
Researcher and Training Prize papers are both reviewed, given their considerable
connection.
Lush Prize research in 2013 also involved extensive interviews and feedback fromprevious prize winners which provided valuable information regarding ongoing
attitudes to non-animal research and its acceptance in the scientific community, as
well as how meaningful the individual bursaries offered by the Young Researcher
Prize have been to date.

1

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2012- Research Paper

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

4

!

4
Where are we now? The current situation, developments andkey issues regarding toxicity testing in animals
4.1
The EU cosmetics marketing ban
As reviewed previously by Lush Prize, a major development in the campaign to end
animal testing came last year on 11th March 2013, when the final ban on the importand sale of animal tested cosmetics came into force across the EU. This completed
a series of deadlines, starting with a ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic
products (back in Sep 2004) followed by a similar ban on testing for cosmetic
ingredients(11 March 2009). The extended marketing deadline until 2013
acknowledged that non-animal methods for certain areas of toxicity testing where not
yet available and to allow extra time for their research and development. These
broad areas of toxicity testing are as follows;
•
•
•
•
•

Repeated dose toxicity
Reproductive toxicity
Toxicokinetics
Skin sensitisation
Carcinogenicity

It’s important to note that each of these areas include many individual tests and canuse varying numbers of animals. For example, a reproductive toxicity test may use aminimum of almost 1000 animals.2
Although the good news is that in theory, all animal testing is now banned under the
EU Cosmetics Regulation (and this specifically means that if a company wants totest any ingredient solely for cosmetic purposes, it can no longer test it on animals in
the EU or sell it in the EU if it has been tested on animals anywhere else in theworld) there are loopholes to be aware of. Substances can still be tested on animals
under other types of legislation (for example REACH, the EU law concerning theRegistration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) which are still ultimately
used in cosmetics. Such ingredients may be of ‘multipurpose’ use and the cosmetics
sector itself has stated that it obtains 90 % of its ingredients from other industries
such as food or industrial chemicals. 3
Furthermore, animal testing for cosmetics still continues outside the EU. Similarly,
there are no such prohibitions on animal use in any other areas of chemicals testingsuch as biocides, food, pharmaceuticals or industrial chemical safety and while
general reference is made to animal welfare and the 3Rs in these areas, animal
testing is still heavily replied upon. It is important to note claims that animal use isavoided ‘whenever possible’ or that animals are only used ‘when there is no legallyavailable alternative’. These statements sound ethically reassuring, but mask the factthat many areas of the animal research industry have at best a reactive, rather than2

BUAV: EU adoption of alternative method is too slow: http://www.buav.org/article/1495/eu-adoption-ofalternative-method-is-too-slow

3

Commission staff working document on the animal testing and marketing ban and on the state of play inrelation to alternative methods in the field of cosmetics :http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/
files/pdf/animal_testing/ia_at_2013_en.pdf

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

5!
proactive attitude to moving away from animal research and will only use alternatives
if they happen to come along.
But there is some good news. The EU cosmetic ban has had a positive influence
outside its borders, as both India and Israel have recently announced bans on
animal tested cosmetics (and household products). 4 5 On a further positive note,
there has been some progress in moving away from animal testing in ‘non-cosmetic’areas. For example, the recently published (June 2014)second report 6 by theEuropean Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on REACH indicates that companies aremaking some use of alternative testing strategies, specifically that
“Building categories and predicting substance properties by read-across is the mostwidely used method. This means filling a data gap for a substance by using
information from similar substances. Combining information together from different
sources (weight of evidence) is the second most common method, followed bycomputer modelling (qualitative/quantitative structural-activity relationship, (Q)SAR).”
However, it is important to be realistic and view this information in context. While it isclearly a welcome move for companies to reduce animal use and maximise use ofexisting alternatives, these efforts are no substitute for what is still vitally neededgenuine, mainstream investment by all relevant stakeholders (academia, industry,
government agencies and public bodies) to develop (or complete validation of) nonanimal methods that are still considered ‘lacking’ and which until available, will resultin animals still being used. Despite the REACH legislation mandating the avoidanceof animals wherever possible, the aforementioned latest ECHA report also indicatesthat at least 4,887 new animal tests have been conducted for REACH since its
launch in 2007, with the number of tests more than doubling since 2009, from 1,849
to 4,887 and a three-fold increase in the number of reproductive toxicity tests carriedout (which as stated earlier can use almost 1000 animals per test). As REACH
continues until its final deadline in 2018, further animal tests will significantly
increase this figure, unless radical changes are made. Equally important to note isthat these animal tests are conducted for all manner of purposes, for chemicals
which may be used in everything from laundry detergent to drain cleaner to slimming
foods, simply so that companies can market new or 'innovative' products.
All of this means that there is considerable scope for early career researchers
working in a broad range of scientific or technical fields to get involved in non-animal
methods. This is coupled with the fact that the in-vitro toxicity testing market isprojected to be worth $17,227 million by 2018. 7 Again, the EU cosmetic testing bans
have played a key part in driving this growth.
4

Ban sale of animal tested products: PETA to Government: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/
2014-04-20/news/49266222_1_household-products-cosmetics-animal-tests

5

Import Ban on Animal tested products goes into effect in Israel :http://altweb.jhsph.edu/news/2012/
Israel_bans_testing.html

6European Chemicals Agency (ECHA): The Use of Alternatives to Testing on Animals for the REACH
Regulation. Second report under Article 117(3) of the REACH Regulation

7

In-Vitro Toxicology Testing Market worth $17,227 Million by 2018: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/newsreleases/in-vitro-toxicology-testing-market-worth-17227-million-by-2018-253586361.html

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

6

!

4.2

Mainstream funding and development of 3Rs including non- animal methods

The importance of funding offered by the Lush Prize continues to grow. This isespecially relevant to the Young Researcher Prize, as the bursaries won will bedirectly funding methods to replace the use of animals in ‘frontline’ research. As
highlighted in 2012 research conducted for the Lush Prize, a major setback with theavailability of non-animal methods is a lack of finance. The fact that ongoing relianceon animal research means it continues to receive the vast majority of funding.
Furthermore, those interested in non-animal research not only have to maintainmomentum on their specific ideas and methods, but also face a need to continually
look for funding or sponsorship, which ultimately impacts on the amount of time they
directly spend on their research, as acknowledged by PETA in an interview with LushPrize in 2012;‘.people may have good ideas about non-animal methods but they’re continually
going to be seeking support…and funding for those’ 8
To provide some up to date figures to illustrate, in 2012-2013 in the UK, over £300
million of public funding was spent on projects which ‘ include an element of animal
use’ .In contrast, just under £9 million was awarded to 3R’s projects broadly termed
as ‘alternatives’ ,with the NC3Rs awarding £7 million of this total.9 The NC3Rs statethat of the funding they provide, ‘around 55 per cent of research awards are directedprimarily at replacement, 25 per cent for reduction and 20 per cent for refinement’. 10
Therefore within the £9 million, a much lower total was awarded to genuine nonanimal (replacement) methods as a significant amount of ‘alternatives’ funding is
donated to the ‘2Rs’ which still involve animals. For example, previous NC3Rs
funding includes projects which develop scales for recognising facial expressions ofpain in monkeys 11 or facial grimace scales in rabbits.12 To add further perspective,
since it was established in 2004, the NC3Rs has awarded just over £37 million inproject funding. Based on the above figures, this equates to 12% of just one year’s
government funding of projects which include animal research.
Research carried out by the BUAV in 2013 revealed the stark lack of funding devoted
to alternatives to animal testing across the EU member states. Just €18.7 million was
devoted to methods relating to the 3Rs in 2013 by only seven countries, with mostmember states failing to assign any funding at all and half not responding. Given thatthe most recently available figures (for 2011) show the total combined annual
science R&D (research and development) budget for the EU to be almost €257
8

Interview with PETA, 20 August 20129Hansard Written Answers :Animal Experiments 11 March 2014:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?
id=2014-03-11a.188641.h

10

NC3Rs Funding Schemes: http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/landing.asp?id=27

11

Quantifying the behavioural and facial correlates of pain in laboratory macaques: http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/
researchportfolio/showcatportfolio.asp?id=324

12 The Rabbit Grimace Scale- a new method for pain assessment in rabbits: http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news.asp?

id=1833

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

7!
billion, the amount spent on alternatives is wholly inadequate, equating to just
0.007% of expenditure. 13
These figures demonstrate the importance of independent funding for non-animal
research that the Lush Prize offers. At its launch in 2012, the £50,000 total prize
money for the Young Researcher Prize was allocated to five potential winners. This
has now changed slightly to four prizes of £12,500 to increase funding awarded toindividuals, whilst still recognising the work of several researchers .Feedback fromprevious prize-winners has indicated that the bursaries provide a meaningfulamount, therefore the slight increase in funding across four awards will be of evenmore benefit to go towards both research expenses and the cost of consumables.
4.3

Validation and acceptance of non-animal methods

A further rate limiting factor in non-animal methods is their validation andacceptance, as highlighted previously by Lush Prize research. Some of the methods
now available have taken decades to attain even partial approval for use. Added tothis is the confusion caused by different rates of validation according to various
guidelines, for example European Test Methods Regulation vs the OECD guidelines
14. However, on the positive side, the rigorous validation and testing process only
adds to the weight of evidence that non-animal methods provide highly accurate andhuman-relevant technologies, where animal testing continues to fail. Furthermore, noanimal test has ever been validated and scrutinised to the same scientific degree as
non-animal methods. Rather, animal based methods defined as ‘well characterised’or ‘well defined’ simply means that they have been carried out in duplicative tests
over and over again, with little or no translation into a clinical setting. A very recently
published article by the Editor of the British Medical Journal highlights this, by asking‘How productive and predictive is animal research?’ and concluded that ‘Funds
might be better directed towards clinical rather than basic research, where there is aclearer return on investment in terms of effects on patient care.’ 15
There is also a well-established ‘Catch 22’ situation with acceptance of non-animal
methods, whereby regulatory agencies feel unwilling or unable to accept such data,
largely due to the fact that they are not used to seeing it as much and so continue torely on animal based data. This in turn means that the industry is unwilling to invest
time and money in non-animal methods as there is a risk that they will not beapproved. This was highlighted by Prof. Coenraad Hendriksen, the Chair of‘Alternatives to Animal Use’ of the University of Utrecht to the European Parliament
recently;

13

Taylor, K. (2013) BUAV : EU member state government contribution to alternative methods. ALTEX:http://
www.altex.ch/resources/epub_Taylor_140124.pdf

14

Wagner, K. et al. (2012) Inconsistencies in Data Requirements of EU Legislation Involving Tests on Animals
ALTEX:http://www.altex.ch/resources/altex_2012_3_302_332_Wagner11.pdf

15

How predictive and productive is animal research? BMJ: 5th June 2014:http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/348/
bmj.g3719.full.pdf

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

8!
"..manufacturers are reluctant to invest in alternative tests without having
assurance of regulatory acceptance. At the same time and the other way around the regulators are reluctant to assure acceptance in the absence of data.’ 16This again emphasises a clear contrast in attitudes and bias when compared to theanimal testing community, for example in the UK where basic or ‘fundamental’research (also termed ‘blue sky’ research, as highlighted in the Lush Prize 2012
paper) which, far from being met with apprehension, reluctance or claims of ‘highrisk’, is actively encouraged and accounts for 30% of all animals used annually,
continually receiving large-scale investment and public funding. There is no legal
requirement to perform basic or ‘fundamental’ research on animals, yet a highlydemand led system is in place.
4.4”Banning animal testing will stifle innovation"

This was a claim that was regularly made by industry as the 2013 EU cosmetics ban
came into effect (“the ban acts as a brake on innovation" .17) Far from impeding
research, the bans (both 2009 and 2013) had the opposite effect and were the directdrivers for the launch of new research into non-animal methods through large scale,multinational projects, (for example ReProTect 18) as these critical deadlines
approached. Research and development of new methods is innovation in itself andprovides the perfect opportunity for those who genuinely want to be involved in
cutting edge, next generation science, without causing animal suffering. The EU has
led the way in progress to alternative methods of testing to animals and isconsidered ‘a leader in innovation’, something which should be reflected in theopportunities it offers young researchers and emerging graduate scientists.
4.5

Toxicity testing is toxicity testing, regardless of purpose

The validated and accepted non-animal (replacement) toxicity testing methods thatare now available have been developed largely due to EU bans on both the testing(March 2009) and the marketing (March 2013) of cosmetic ingredients on animals.
As a result, discussion of replacing animals in toxicity testing is far more common
and perhaps considered more acceptable in the cosmetics field. However, young
researchers working or studying in other areas of toxicity may feel less able tospeak out about their research interests, especially in replacement /non-animal
methods as these are seen as more controversial than ‘2Rs’ (reduction or
refinement) approaches. It is therefore important to recognise that these methods
are now of essential use in other chemicals testing sectors, such as the food or
pharmaceutical industries. This demonstrates that when a non-animal method isdeveloped and accepted, it can potentially be applied to the testing of any
16

Animal Testing- Science or Tradition? Summary of Proceedings- Expert Seminar European Parliament 19th
Feb 2014: http://www.sidonia.pl/files/12iii14.pdf

17Europe Bans Marketing of Cosmetics Tested on Animals: http://ens-newswire.com/2013/03/11/europe-bansmarketing-of-cosmetics-tested-on-animals/

18

ReProTect http://www.opentox.org/meet/opentox2011/talks/OpenTox2011_Talk-Schwarz.pdf

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

9!
substance, for any purpose. This may encourage young researchers to voice theirinterests in non-animal methods.
This is especially relevant as, despite alternatives being developed in areas such as
cosmetics, toxicity testing in animals continues in many other industries. For
example, in the UK in 2013, over 375,000 toxicity tests (from a total 4.12 million
experiments) were performed on animals (mice, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs,
cats, monkeys, birds and fish).19 Another important point with regard to the Young
Researcher Prize is that almost half of all animal experiments in the UK are carriedout at universities. One of the most concerning findings is that an increase in GM(genetically modified)animal use (mainly mice) and an increasing use of zebrafish isin some aspects being considered an ‘alternative’, as highlighted by FRAME (Fundfor Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments).20
Latest figures 21 also show that over 1 million animals (1,004873 from a total of justunder 11.5 million animals) are used in toxicity testing across the EU each year. Of
these, 111,166 animals are used in tests that aren’t even required by law(categorised as ‘no regulatory requirements’) The archaic and much criticised LD 50 /LC 50 (lethal dose or lethal concentration test which tests the amount of substancerequired to kill 50% of the animals) accounts for the majority of the animals usedeach year, along with other lethal tests (34%) with the other main use simply being
categorised as ‘other’ toxicology tests. (22%) followed by chronic/sub chronic toxicity
and reproductive toxicity. There is no official figure for the number of toxicity tests still
conducted on animals worldwide (from the estimated yearly total of 115 million
animals 22 used in all experiments) as many countries omit this information or do noteven count numbers of animals used, however a revised estimate by Lush Prize puts
the number of toxicity tests carried out on animals worldwide as almost 9.5 million(from a total 118 million animal experiments)23.
Despite ongoing development and validation of alternatives in some of these areas
however, thousands of animals continue to be used in all types of toxicity tests, assummarised below:

19

Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals (2013) -UK Home Office:https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/327854/spanimals13.pdf

20Home Office statistics on lab animal use released -FRAME:http://www.frame.org.uk/home-office-statistics-onlab-animal-use-released/

21

Seventh Report on the number of animals used in scientific procedures (2011): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
resource.html?uri=cellar:d2e73ac5-60d0-11e3-ab0f-01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/DOC_1&format=PDF

22

Taylor, K. et al. (2008) Estimates of Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005: BUAV http://www.buav.org/_lib/userfiles/files/Science_Reports/Estimates_For_Worldwide_Laboratory.pdf

23

Lush Prize ' A Global View of Animal Experiments 2014' - http://www.lushprize.org/wp-content/uploads/
Global_View_of-Animal_Experiments_2014.pdf

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

10

!
Test

Description

Acute and sub-acute toxicity
testing
Methods (including lethal
dose tests such as LD50)

Tests of one-off or short term duration, usually via
oral, dermal or inhalation dosing (usually mice or
rats)

Skin Irritation

Test to check for (reversible) damage to the skin by
topical application of a substance to the animals’
shaved bare skin (usually rabbits)

Skin Sensitisation

Test to check for (irreversible) damage to the skin by
topical application of a substance to the animals’
shaved bare skin (usually rabbits)

Eye Irritation/Corrosion

The Draize rabbit test –substance is instilled into theeyes of albino rabbits to check for irritation/corrosion(reversible/irreversible injury) to the cornea, iris andconjunctiva for up to 21 days

Sub chronic and chronic
toxicity

Longer term (weeks/months/years) repeated dose
toxicity tests (oral/skin/inhalation) usually for 28 or
90 days ( longer studies of 1-2 years are also
conducted) rodents and non-rodent species (dogs or
non-human primates)

Carcinogenicity

Oral/dermal/inhalation of substances to check fordevelopment of cancerous lesions, typically rats for
2 years duration.

Developmental Toxicity

To check for effects during pregnancy of animals
and foetuses(female rats and rabbits)

Mutagenicity & Genotoxicity

Test to check effects of DNA damage which may or
may not be passed onto offspring or lead to cancer several types of test including lethal testing inrodents

Reproductive Toxicity

To check for effects on the reproductive function ofmale and female animals and development ofoffspring. Long term dosing of parent animals before
mating, during mating, pregnancy and birth ofoffspring for entire generations of animals. Large
numbers of animals used per test. e.g. Extended
One Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study for one
chemical uses 960 animals

Toxicity to aquatic
vertebrates

Fish are used to test for both acute and chronic toxic
effects; tests include the 96-hour LC50 test, (lethal
concentration to 50% of the fish). Chronic fish tests
may start with eggs, embryos, or juveniles, and lastfrom 7 to more than 200 days

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

11!
‘Other Toxicology’ tests **The latest EU statistics state that these ‘other’ tests
include ‘neurotoxicity, toxicokinetics, testing of
biological evaluation of medical devices:
intracutaneous testing of reactivity in rabbits, studies
into the penetration of nanoparticles through tissue
and their biocompatibility, studies into the evaluationof sensitization potential of dyestuffs used in the
textile industry and pharmacological studies
included in safety tests) and target animal studies
carried out on companion animals to different
regulatory standards ( e.g. US EPA, FDA) tests todetermine the residues of veterinary medicaments incalves and in broilers, test to determine the nontoxicity and irreversibility of toxins and efficacy of
vaccines (blue tongue, clostridium)

In its 2013 progress report 24 on the development, validation and regulatory
acceptance of alternative methods, EURL-ECVAM (EU Reference Laboratory foralternatives to animal testing) summarised that
"Overall, good progress has been made in the validation and regulatory acceptancein areas such as local toxicity where the underpinning science is more advanced andmature alternative methods are available. For very complex endpoints on the other
hand, such as chronic systemic toxicity, carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity,
efforts are predominantly focused on research and development where the emphasis
is on the integration of a variety of methods based on mechanistic understanding.
The future is bright however, since considerable advances in new in vitro
technologies, systems biology, bioinformatics and computational modelling are
driving a paradigm shift in toxicological testing and assessment where non-animal
methods will ultimately become the tools of choice.’
4.6

A year on from the 2013 marketing ban- work still to be done

Despite the EU animal-tested cosmetic bans being the major driver of non-animal
toxicity testing methods in recent years, there is still much more to be done. This is
illustrated very clearly given that ‘Over 80% of the world allows animals to be used in
cruel and unnecessary cosmetics tests and these animal tested cosmetics can bepurchased in every country across the globe." 25
Although the 2013 EU marketing ban on animal tested cosmetics did finally goahead, the European Commission had previously considered the possibility ofdelaying the deadline on the basis of recommendations that the alternative methods
24

EURL ECVAM progress report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative
methods (2010-2013):http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/eurl-ecvam/eurl-ecvam-releases-2013-progressreport-development-validation-regulatory-acceptance-alternative-methods

25

Cruelty Free International: Animal tested cosmetics are for sale in every country in the world:http://
www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/en/the-issue

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

12!
still ‘missing’ would take much longer to be developed. For example, estimates ofanother 5- 9 years were proposed for skin sensitisation and toxicokinetic methods tobe developed and possibly even longer for full replacement in these areas. No
estimates were provided at all for when repeat dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity or
carcinogenicity tests on animals might be developed. These timelines were
estimated in a report published by the Commission in 2011. 26 In the three years
since then, aside from the introduction of the 2013 ban itself (which went ahead
regardless of the alternatives available, which was great news) further work has
been ongoing in the areas of toxicity testing which still need development. For
example, in 2013 the Joint Research Centre (JRC) published its EURL-ECVAM
Strategy to Avoid and Reduce Animal Use in Genotoxicity Testing’. 27Similarly, thefive-year long NOTOX project 28 launched in 2011 and involving a network ofscientific expertise from several countries works ‘towards the replacement of current
repeated dose systemic toxicity testing in human safety assessment’. NOTOX is partof a wider project funded under the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP-7)
known as SEURAT (Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing) which
combines the research efforts of over 70 European universities, public research
institutes and companies and regularly posts open vacancies and research
opportunities. 29 Of particular relevance is that SEURAT recently hosted a ‘Young
Scientists Summer School’ to discuss replacement of repeat dose toxicity testing inanimals. 30

26

Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010: http://
ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/alt-animal-testing-safety-assessment-chemicals/report_2010/fulltext.pdf

27

EURL ECVAM Strategy to Avoid and Reduce Animal Use in Genotoxicity Testing:http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/30088/1/jrc_report_en_34844_online.pdf

28

NOTOX: Predicting long term toxic effects using computer models based on systems characterization oforganotypic cultures: http://www.notox-sb.eu/

29

SEURAT (Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Testing): http://www.seurat-1.eu/

30

Young scientists from JRC"s EURL ECVAM at the second SEURAT-1 Summer School: https://www.eurtd.com/seurat-1/2014/summer-school/

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

13

!

5

The key players in the field – the ethical early career scientists

As previously highlighted, there remain ongoing prejudices towards switching fromanimal to non –animal research. Resistance to change, combined with ‘comfort’ inrepeating accepted, conventional methods allows the animal research industry tomaintain the ‘status quo’, despite ever increasing recognition that animal testing is aflawed, overrated and outdated system. It must also be noted that the industry has
for decades consisted of a network of not only researchers, but breeders, suppliers
and transporters of animals across the world who rely on animal testing to continue.
There are other factors to consider, for example some scientists(especially seniorlevel researchers) have based their entire careers on using animals and are unable
or unwilling to consider anything else or they may view switching to non-animal
research as the unattractive option of ‘starting again’. This may also apply to earlier
career individuals who have followed the mainstream route into animal based
toxicology to progress their careers to date, for example since leaving university.
This is echoed by several previous prizewinners who felt that the undergraduatelevel of their education was the most challenging in trying to avoid using animals.
Nevertheless, one of the positive findings from interviews with previous Young
Researcher Prize winners is that ‘young scientists don’t always have the prejudicesabout animal testing being the ‘best’ way of doing things’.31
Research for Lush Prize conducted during its launch in 2012 provided a usefulsummary of various awards and funding programmes available to early career
scientists. An updated summary of these is shown below, with some new additions inbold. It should be noted that these prizes cover any or all of the 3Rs, rather than justreplacement and the list is not exhaustive.
Name of award, prize or bursary

Organisation behind award

3Rs Science Award

The European Partnership for Alternative
Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA)

Russell & Burch Award

Humane Society of the United States

Charles River Laboratories’ Excellencein Refinement Award

Charles River Laboratories/ CAAT,(Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives toAnimal Testing)David Sainsbury Fellowships

National Centre for the Replacement,
Refinement and Reduction of Animals in
Research (NC3Rs).

NC3Rs Studentships * (a more detailed
summary of these is provided below)

National Centre for the Replacement,
Refinement and Reduction of Animals in
Research (NC3Rs).

31

Lush Young Researchers Prize 2012- Research Paper

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

14!
LRI Innovative Science Award

The European Chemical Industry Council(CEFIC), in conjunction with the Societyof Environmental Toxicology andChemistry (SETAC), the Association ofEuropean Toxicologists and European
Societies of Toxicology (EUROTOX), theInternational Society of Exposure
Sciences (ISES) and Chemical Week

Macquarie University Eureka Prize for
Outstanding Young Researcher

Australian Museum/Macquarie University

Society for In Vitro Biology Young
Scientist Award

Society for In Vitro Biology

Colgate-Palmolive Postdoctoral
Fellowship Award in In Vitro Toxicology

Society of Toxicology, sponsored by
Colgate Palmolive

Scholarships alternatives to animal
testing

Juliana von Wendt Fund, Finland

EPAA 3R Laboratory technician Prize(awarded for the first time in 2013)

The European Partnership for
Alternative Approaches to Animal
Testing (EPAA)

Colgate Palmolive Grants for
Alternatives ResearchSociety of Toxicology, sponsored by
Colgate Palmolive

Colgate Palmolive Awards forStudent Training in Alternative
Methods

Society of Toxicology, sponsored by
Colgate Palmolive

Bjorn Ekwall Memorial Award

Bjorn Ekwall Memorial Foundation

CAAT Recognition Award

CAAT, (Johns Hopkins Center for
Alternatives to Animal Testing)

Doerenkamp-Zbinden Award

Doerenkamp-Zbinden Foundation

ECETOC Science Awards

ECETOC(European Centre for
Ecotoxicology and Toxicology ofChemicals)Japanese Society for Alternatives to Japanese Society for Alternatives toAnimal Experiments (JSAAE) Society Animal Experiments (JSAAE)
Award
Three R's Award

New Zealand National Animal Ethics
Advisory Committee

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

15!
Nordic Prize for Alternatives toAnimal Experiments

The Swedish Fund for ResearchWithout Animal Experiments, theDanish Alternative Fund and theFinnish Juliana von Wendt Fund2015 Felix Wankel Animal Welfare
Research Award

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich

for a variety of animal welfare issues,
including awarding outstanding
experimental and innovative scientificpapers aiming at or resulting in thereplacement or reduction of animal
testing.

The award (up to €30,000) may be
divided among several prize winners.

*To provide further information on the types of scholarships available to young
researchers, below is a summary of the 15 PhD studentships currently funded by the
UK NC3R’s. The full list is shown to illustrate the types of research on offer, however
it must also be noted that the studentships below cover the broader ‘3Rs’, rather
than the 'replacement only' criteria that the Young Researcher Prize requires.
Location

Description

University of Aberdeen with Marine
Science Scotland

Development of a method for non-lethal
sampling from individual fish to investigate
host responses to ectoparasites.

University of Birmingham with
University of Oxford

Creating an in vitro model of pathogenic
ossification to explore methods fordispersion.

University of Edinburgh

Motor neuron regeneration in larvalzebrafish.

The Babraham Institute, Universityof Cambridge

Towards engineering a multi-cell lineage
multi-organism intestine.

University of East Anglia with
University of Liverpool

Development of a non-mammalian, preclinical screening tool (FETOX) for
predictive analysis of drug safety.

University of Glasgow with University An in vitro model to investigate the role ofof Edinburgh
oestrogen and oestrogen metabolism inpulmonary vascular disease.

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

16!
University of Hertfordshire with
GlaxoSmithKline.

DM-MAP: Drug and Metabolite
Microsampling Analytical Platform forpreclinical medicines development

University of Leeds

Development of an in vitro system todetermine the causes of aberrant,
leukaemogenic V(D)J recombinant
reactions.

University of Liverpool

University of Oxford

Developing molecular therapies forglaucoma using an ex vivo human organ
culture system.
Development of a patient-derived cellularmodel of circadian disruption in bipolar
disorderRoyal Holloway, University of London Find the target of valproic acid; pioneeringwith University College London.
the use of a non-animal model for basic
biomedical (epilepsy) research
Royal Veterinary College

Replacing rodent models for investigating
the influence of the microbiome upon innate
immune responses and resistance topathogens.

University of Southampton

Exploitation of an ex vivo disease model tocharacterise early events in retinaldegeneration.

University of Strathclyde

Developing microfluidic systems for highthroughput studies of functional neuronal
networks.

University of Sussex

Development of a refined model ofneuropathic pain: a model without franknerve injury.

As highlighted by EURL-ECVAM 32, a key factor in the development of non-animal
methods is the integration of a number of test methods (or ‘battery’) which
successfully address endpoints, especially those which are considered more
complex or in-depth. (For example, several alternatives available in skin testingexamine how a substance may react in various stages of topical application,
absorption, irritation or corrosion which provide very targetted and quantitative
results, especially when compared to a crude skin test in rabbits or guinea pigs).
32

EURL ECVAM progress report on the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative
methods (2010-2013):http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/eurl-ecvam/eurl-ecvam-releases-2013-progressreport-development-validation-regulatory-acceptance-alternative-methods

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

17!
Therefore,non-animal methods which are still in testing or validation, or ‘gaps’ in thedevelopment of methods where the biggest use of animals still lies, such as
reproductive or chronic toxicity, could allow the Lush Prize to potentially channel
ideas or research themes for specific replacement projects. This may also help
young researchers to specialise in key areas. For example promotion of helpful
materials could aid those who wish to get involved in animal free toxicology andneed an area to focus on to progress further.
Never before has there been a better opportunity for young researchers to focus on
this specialist area, not only to save animals from unnecessary pain and suffering,but to pave the way for a career in cutting edge innovation. As highlighted by the
New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) in a previous interview with LushPrize, linking an early career scientist’s research to increased income andsponsorship is key;
"I think the solution for graduate students who want to do more progressive in vitro
research is to find the granting agencies that will help bring money in [to an
institution].... The key to changing institutions is bringing in grant dollars. Whensomeone who wants to develop in vitro alternatives can show that they can bring inmillion dollar grants, then institutions are going to have to accept it. They’re notgoing to turn money away even if they want to try to suppress a certain ideology"33
Therefore, if a researcher has ideas but can also say ‘ if you fund me, I propose to
cut your costs, save you time, increase income and improve your business ‘, whilst
this might be a challenge, their proposals are much more likely to be considered.

33

Interview with NEAVS, 20 August 2012

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

18

!

6
A review of organisations, research institutes, public bodies
and societies which provide a network of educational and career
opportunities for young researchers
Earlier education is key; raising awareness as soon as possible
There is significant connection between the Young Researcher and Training Prizes
with regard to educational issues in animal testing and alternatives. For the 2013
prize cycle, Lush Prize conducted extensive reviews of school curriculums,
educational materials and university level information on both dissection and animal
testing and interviews with key campaigning organisations and research institutes.
As an update to this research, the next section reviews some of these organisations
which currently operate highly successful educational and training packages forschools, colleges and universities, as well as more specific research initiatives,funding opportunities and events specifically aimed at early career scientists whowish to find out more. Further details on all organisations referenced in this paper
can be found in Appendix 1.
Alttox is an essential tool for graduates and young scientists interested in pursuing acareer in toxicity testing without animals. It is an online forum for exchange of
information and news on non-animal toxicity tests methods, with a toxicity testing
resource centre, useful links to other organisations and forthcoming events andtraining courses. It also invites commentaries in a section entitled ‘The Way Forward’
34

Established in 1993, The Alternatives Research & Development Foundation(ARDF) based in the USA awards research funds that support the development,
validation, and/or adoption of non-animal methods in biomedical research, producttesting, and education. ARDF aims to bring ‘alternatives technology and compassion
to modern laboratories and classrooms’. 35
Animal Aid’s education department operates a school speaker training service
whose speakers are available to present and train volunteers on a number of animal
rights issues, including animal testing. They can also provide educational materials
for both teachers and pupils on request. 36
BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) provides a ‘Schools’ guide 37
also aimed at students, to raise awareness and provide a truthful insight into therealities of animal testing. They also produce a number of science reports providing
further information 38
34

AltTox- Non-animal methods for Toxicity Testing: http://www.alttox.org/

35

Alternatives Research and Develpment Foundation :http://www.ardf-online.org/

36 Animal Aid: Education Department :http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/EDUCATION/
37

What's wrong with animal experiments? A guide for students: BUAV:http://www.buav.org/_lib/userfiles/files/
Guides/BUAV_SchoolsGuide.pdf

38

BUAV Science Reports: http://www.buav.org/humane-science/science-reports/

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

19!
The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) 39based at John Hopkins
University in Maryland, USA has had key involvement in the Lush Prize to date. As
well as it’s US site it has European Headquarters at the University of Konstanz inGermany and operates ALtweb , a website dedicated to the 3Rs and disseminationof information on humane science to researchers, students and educational staff aswell as others. CAAT and ALtweb are vital sources of information (such as events orlatest updates on studentships or sponsorships available to apply for) to thosewishing to pursue or maintain a career in non-animal methods.
DAAE- (Doctors Against Animal Experiments) based in Germany run projects foryoung people and have offered research fund prizes 40
The Dr Hadwen Trust (DHT), the UK’s leading non-animal medical research charity,
as well as funding a variety of research projects on an ongoing basis, has awarded
seven ‘Summer Studentships’ in 2014 41 to young researchers to enable them tocontinue their work in replacements to animal testing over the summer period. This
year’s projects support a variety of new methods into disease including Parkinson’s
disease, cancer and diabetes. The DHT launched the Summer Studentship scheme
in 2012, to assist undergraduate students in gaining practical, laboratory-based
experience in research methods to replace animals. Funding is offered for a periodof up to eight weeks and includes a budget for research consumables. Additionally,in 2014 the DHT is looking for a student (aged 18+) to take up a free bursary place
to attend and represent the DHT at the British Science Festival from 6-11 September
in Birmingham42.
ESTIV (European Society of Toxicology In-Vitro)
http://www.estiv.org
ESTIV promotes in-vitro methods both scientifically and educationally acrossEurope. ESTIV held its 2014 congress in the Netherlands with a theme of 'Making
Sense of In-Vitro Methods’. Topics covered this year included long term toxicity
prediction using computer models and integrated, non-animal testing strategies inskin sensitisation. ESTIV is also offering a training course in January 2015 in Lisbon
entitled ' Applied In-Vitro Toxicology Course' and welcomes young scientists. ESTIVis sponsored by a number of major chemical and pharmaceutical companies, mostrecently Roche.
For early career scientists who are interested in specific opportunities to gain
experience in the validation of alternative methods , EURL-ECVAM (The European
Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing) represents a
focal point of EU activity on alternative test methods and in response to the39

John Hopkins University Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing : http://caat.jhsph.edu/

40

Doctors Against Animal Experiments (Germany):http://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/projects/schoolproject

41 Dr. Hadwen Trust Summer Studentships Projects 2014: http://www.drhadwentrust.org/research-and-funding/summer-studentships-current-portfolio
42

Would you like to be the DHT’s Geek4aWeek? http://www.drhadwentrust.org/latest-news/news-and-views/
post/254-would-you-like-to-be-the-dhtas-geek4aweek

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

20!
requirement by the recently amended EU directive on animal research (2010/63/EU)
set up EU-NETVAL (the European Union Network of Laboratories for the Validationof Alternative Methods). EU-NETVAL currently consists of 26 ‘member’ laboratories
43 which may be of interest to young scientists to monitor regularly for up and coming
career opportunities or internships. Opportunities may be on offer either at thesesites directly, or other sites associated with them. It is important to note that many ofthese labs are not exclusively dedicated to alternatives to animal use and may also
conduct animal research. For example the UK member is HLS (Huntingdon Life
Sciences) a global scale animal testing laboratory. Some of the EU-NETVAL labs arealso listed separately below where they offer specific other educational or career
opportunities in non-animal methods.
FICAM, the Finnish Centre for Alternative Methods 44 is the centre of expertise foralternative methods to animals and the EU-NETVAL member laboratory for Finland.
FICAM focuses on the development and validation of human cell and tissue culture
2D- and 3D-models. FICAM has a strong core of scientific education and training in
non-animal methods and states that ‘students can perform research both for MSc
and doctoral (Ph.D. and MD) degrees. The students for MSc degree come fromother study programs, and they will only perform the practical research in FICAM.
The students for doctoral degree usually belong to graduate schools’. Since 2007,
FICAM has also provided special courses in cell and tissue culture for toxicology
schools which would be directly relevant to young scientists, as well as being linked
to the Finnish Consensus Platform for Alternatives (FINCOPA) and organisation of
yearly networking events and seminars.
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)45 haveprovided key information in previous Lush Prize research. FRAME is based in
Nottingham, UK and operates the FRAME Alternatives Laboratory (FAL) as well as
providing training schools in experimental design and statistics in association with
universities throughout the UK, Europe and Scandinavia. FRAME’s mission is topromote the replacement of animals in medical experiments, and the use of nonanimal methods for predicting human adverse reactions, as well as to promote thedevelopment and evaluation of in vitro and other non-animal alternatives in peer
reviewed scientific journals and relevant scientific research. FRAME also publishes
ATLA, the Alternatives to Laboratory Animals Journal.
The Humane Research Trust (UK) is a registered charity dedicated to medical
research without animals. The HRT encourages scientists to develop innovative
alternatives and focuses on ‘educating the next generation of researchers’. Theirstatement of policy is ‘No animals or animal tissue to be used. Applications need toshow some advance in technique, or use existing techniques in areas where it is the43

EU-Netval -European Union Network of Laboratories for the Validation of Alternative Methods: http://
ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/eurl-ecvam/eu-netval/EU-NETVAL-list-labs-updated-13-01-2014.pdf

44

FICAM- The Finnish Centre for Alternative Methods:http://www.ficam.fi/

45 FRAME Training Schools in Experimental Design - http://www.frame.org.uk/training-schools/

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

21!
norm to use animals, which will lead to a reduction in animal usage and a benefit tohuman health.”46
The International Foundation for Ethical Research (IFER) based in Chicago, USAawards cutting edge new technologies that replace animals in research, testing andeducation. IFER offers graduate student fellowships which provide $12,500 plus
$2,500 for supply costs. They operate a number of eligibility criteria for interested
applicants.47
INTERNICHE (International Network for Humane Education) produce a varietyof educational materials relevant to study of human medicine, veterinary researchand the life sciences.
The Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research (LDF) funds medical research
projects which replace the use of animals. Detailed information on the LDF, the typesof projects it funds and how to apply can be found on their website. Although the LDF
currently states that funding availability is limited, one-off funding may be considered
for research consumables. The LDF also states that ‘Although we are always keen
to promote studies into alternatives to animal experimentation, we unfortunately don’t
provide funding purely for individuals at the PhD or post-graduate level’.48
The Australian based Medical Advances Without Animals Trust (MAWA) is a
registered charity which aims to advance medical science to improve human healthand therapeutic outcomes without using animals or animal products. The Trust
provides “research and equipment grants, fellowships, scholarships, bursaries andsponsorships to scientists and scholars throughout Australia in a competitive award
process, and funds a range of other initiatives to further MAWA’s goals”.49
The Netherlands Knowledge Centre on Alternatives to Animal Use (NKCA)
promotes the application of the 3Rs in the Netherlands. The Centre is a collaboration
between the RIVM (National Institute for Public Health) and the University of Utrecht
since 2010 and offers ‘animal testing alternatives’ modules as part of postgraduate
training for professionals. NKCA also advises teachers on the animal-free testingmodels available for secondary schools, and recommends animal-testingalternatives as a potential subject for student projects.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) in the USA
promotes alternatives to animal research and campaigns for the use of non-animal
methods in medical education. They provide a wealth of scientific educational
materials, information on courses and career opportunities and internships. The

46 Humane Research Trust – Applying for Funding http://www.humaneresearch.org.uk/application-for-funding/
47

IFER Graduate Fellowships for Alternatives to the Use of Animals - http://www.ifer.org/fellowships.php

48

Lord Dowding Fund- Applying for Funding:http://www.ldf.org.uk/research/49/52/298/

49

MAWA Funding Initiatives :http://mawa-trust.org.au/pdf/MAWA%20Funding%20Initiatives.pdf

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

22!
PCRM also campaigns on a broader scope for higher standards of ethical researchand the benefits of preventative medicine. 50
SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation) are a New Zealand based organisation andprevious 2013 ‘Public Awareness’ Lush Prize winner, promoting a number ofeducational materials. They also offer school speaking services to educate and raiseawareness on a variety of animal rights and welfare issues, including animal
experiments. For example, SAFE recently presented at the 'Humane Education
Symposium'. 51
Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) are based in the UK and promote
ethical awareness in science and technology. They provide an ‘ethical careers’
section on their website which includes resources to help scientists and engineers
gain a deeper understanding of ethical issues in science, design and technology andhelp them choose an ethical path in this area. Materials include briefings,
presentations, articles and other resources, as well as an ‘ethical employers’ contact
list.52
SET based in Germany is the Foundation for the Promotion of Alternate
and Complementary Methods to Reduce Animal Testing. SET offers the opportunity
to gain funding for projects which focus broadly across the 3Rs. SET also have aninterest in funding training and education initiatives. 53
As referenced earlier in this paper, the EU research project known as SEURAT(Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Tests) recently hosted it’s second‘Young Scientists Summer School’ in collaboration with ESTIV (European Society of
Toxicology In Vitro to discuss replacement of repeat dose toxicity testing in animals.
54

The Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments supports
alternatives in basic and applied research in various areas, including thedevelopment of computer simulation systems, toxicology, and training of laboratory
personnel and courses in alternatives. The fund has awarded over 30 million SEK
since 1971 and currently awards projects totalling € 80 000-160 000 each year. 55
The 3R Research Foundation (Switzerland): awards annual prizes for research
directly impacting on the 3Rs. They have key areas of interest that they emphasise50

PCRM:Education and Training - http://www.pcrm.org/research/edtraining/

51

SAFE Education :http://www.safe.org.nz/Education/

52

SGR Ethical Careers: http://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/ethical-careers

53

SET Funding and Proposals: Guidelines and Criteria http://www.stiftung-set.de/research_funding/
guidelines_and_criteria.html?L=1

54

SEURAT-1 Young Scientists Summer School https://www.eurtd.com/seurat-1/2014/summer-school/

55

Projects Funded by the Swedish Fund http://www.forskautandjurforsok.se/in-english/Grants/

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper23!
to grant applicants, one of which is alternative methods to acute and chronic toxicity
testing. 56
HemiBio is one of six projects funded under the SEURAT programme. The aim of
HeMiBio is to generate a liver-simulating device (Hepatic Microfluidic Bioreactor)
mimicking the structure and function of the human liver. Hemibio states that there isa great need for suitable human cells to be used in toxicity testing, due to the often
poor concordance between animal models and toxic effects in humans. The project
was set up in 2011 as part of the drive to find suitable non-animal methods to meetthe requirements of the (then) forthcoming marketing ban on animal tested
cosmetics. HemiBio also plans a series of education and training opportunities foryoung scientists. Workshops and courses cover topics such as cell biology, genetic
engineering of stem cells and 2D or 3D-culture devices. HemiBio also promotes job
and study opportunities as well as events including Summer and Winter Schools foryoung scientists. 57

56

3Rs Research Foundation - Principal areas for financial support of research projects :http://
www.forschung3r.ch/en/guidelines/focus.html

57

Third HeniBio Winter School for Young Scientists: http://www.hemibio.eu/training-a-education

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

24

!

7

Resources & selected bibliography

Appendix 1: List of websites of organisations and documents used to help
inform this report
Alternatives Research and Development
http://www.ardf-online.org
The mission of the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation is to fundand promote the development, validation and adoption of non-animal methods inbiomedical research, product testing and education
Altox
http://www.alttox.org/
AltTox.org is a website dedicated to advancing non-animal methods of toxicity
testing through online discussion and information exchange.
Animal Aid
http://www.animalaid.org.uk
Animal Aid is the UK's largest animal rights group and one of the longest establishedin the world, campaigning peacefully against all forms of animal abuse andpromoting a cruelty-free lifestyle. Animal Aid investigates and exposes animal cruelty,
and the evidence found is often used by the media, bringing these issues to publicattention.
Björn Ekwall Memorial Foundation
http://www.bemf.eu/
The Scandinavian Society for Cell Toxicology (SSCT) established the Björn
Ekwall Memorial Foundation in 2001. The main goal of the BEMF is to honour the
memory of Dr. Björn Ekwall by giving a reward to the scientists who havesubstantially contributed to the field of cell toxicology, e.g. by developing new in vitro
tests, or via mechanistic or validation studies.
British Toxicology Society
http://www.thebts.org/
The BTS is a learned society for toxicologists in the UK and represents theinterests of approximately 1,000 members.
The Campaign to End All Animal Experiments (BUAV)
http://www.buav.org/
Leading UK antivivisection campaigning organisation with a vision to “create a world
where nobody wants or believes we need to experiment on animals”. Also acts as
secretariat to the ECEAE (European Coalition to End Animal Experiments)
Cruelty Free international
http://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/
Cruelty Free International is the global campaign to end animal testing forcosmetics, calling on governments and regulators around the world to introduce aban on the testing of animals for cosmetic products and ingredients.

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

25!
DAAE- (Doctors Against Animal Experiments)
http://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de
DAAE based in Germany, is a charitable organisation of several hundred doctors
and scientists who work in the medical field. DAAE supports the immediate abolitionof all animal experiments on ethical and scientific grounds. In order to make the crueland unscientific nature of animal experiments public, they provide scientifically based
information on animal experiments both for doctors and scientists, as well as for thegeneral public.
Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research
http://www.drhadwentrust.org
The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research (DHT) is the UK’s leading
medical research charity that funds and promotes the development of techniques
and procedures to replace the use of animals in biomedical research and testing.
European Consensus Platform for Alternatives (ECOPA)
http://www.ecopa.eu
ECOPA is a consensus between animal welfare, industry, academia andgovernmental institutions in various countries as an efficient way to stimulate
research into alternatives to animal experiments and enforce the acceptance ofalternatives in experimental practice.
European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals
http://www.ecetoc.org/
ECETOC is Europe’s leading industry association for developing andpromoting top quality science in human and environmental risk assessment ofchemicals.
EURL-ECVAM (The European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives toAnimal Testing)
http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_labs/eurl-ecvam
EURL-ECVAM was established in 2011, due to the increasing need for new methods
to be developed and proposed for validation in the European Union.
EUROECOTOX
http://www.euroecotox.eu/
Euroecotox is a European Network established to promote the integration ofEuropean activities on the replacement and reduction of animal experiments inecotoxicology.
The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing(EPAA)
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/epaa/index_en.htm
A voluntary collaboration between the European Commission, European tradeassociations, and companies from seven industry sectors. The partners arecommitted to pooling knowledge and resources to accelerate the development,
validation and acceptance of alternative approaches to further the replacement,
reduction and refinement (3Rs) of animal use in regulatory testing.

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

26

!
FICAM (The Finnish Centre for Alternative Methods)
http://www.ficam.fi
FICAM is the centre of expertise for alternative methods to animal experimentation in
Finland. FICAM develops and validates human-cell-based tissue/organ models,shares information on alternative methods, educates experts, and acts as theFinnish reference laboratory for EURL-ECVAM (European Union Reference
Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing).
Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)
www.frame.org.uk
The ultimate aim of FRAME is the elimination of the need to use laboratory animals
in any kind of medical or scientific procedures. FRAME is dedicated to thedevelopment of new and valid methods that will replace the need for laboratory
animals in medical and scientific research, education, and testing.
HemiBio
http://www.hemibio.eu/
HemiBio is one of six projects funded under the SEURAT programme. The aim of
HeMiBio is to generate a liver-simulating device (Hepatic Microfluidic Bioreactor)
mimicking the structure and function of the human liver. Hemibio states that there isa great need for suitable human cells to be used in toxicity testing, due to the often
poor concordance between animal models and toxic effects in humans. The project
was set up in 2011 as part of the drive to find suitable non-animal methods to meetthe requirements of the (then) forthcoming marketing ban on animal tested
cosmetics. HemiBio also plans a series of education and training opportunities foryoung scientists. Workshops and courses cover topics such as cell biology, genetic
engineering of stem cells and 2D or 3D-culture devices. HemiBio also promotes job
and study opportunities as well as events including Summer and Winter Schools foryoung scientists
The Humane Research Trust (UK)www.humaneresearch.org.uk
The Humane Research Trust is a registered charity dedicated to medical researchwithout animals. The Trust raises the necessary finance to fund and promotepioneering medical research into human disease without the use of animals or
animal tissue. Their aim is to eliminate the need for animals in human medical
research. The Humane Research Trust works with scientists, funding a wide range of
research at a number of UK hospitals and universities. The Trust also funds
lectureships and studentships, which help to spread the message that humane
research is the cost effective way to promote human health, quickly and with a clear
conscience.
Humane Society International (HSI)
http://www.hsi.org/
HSI is one of the only international animal protection organizations in the world
working to protect all animals—including animals in laboratories, farm animals,
companion animals, and wildlife. HSI has recently seen huge success in Asia with its

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

27!
Be Cruelty Free campaign and engagement with stakeholders in China and Korea tobring an end to animal testing and promote use of non-animal methods.
The International Foundation for Ethical Research (IFER)
http://www.ifer.org
IFER supports the development, validation and implementation of innovative
scientific methodologies that advance science and replace the use of animals in
research, testing and education.
INTERNICHE (International Network for Humane Education)
http://www.interniche.org
The aim of INTERNICHE is to achieve high quality, fully humane education andtraining in medicine, veterinary medicine and biological science. They support
progressive science teaching and the replacement of animal experiments by working
with teachers to introduce alternatives and with students to support freedom of
conscience.
Institute for In Vitro Sciences
http://www.iivs.org/
The Institute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. is a non-profit research and testinglaboratory dedicated to the advancement of in vitro (non-animal) methods worldwide.
In Vitro Jobs
http://www.invitrojobs.com/
Many researchers have a strong interest in animal-free research, but findinformation on institutions and research groups who use animal-free methods hard tocome by. InVitro Jobs was set up by People for Animal Rights (Menschen fürTierrechte -Bundesverband der Tierversuchsgegner) in Germany. The aim is toenable researchers to access animal-free research easily. The site includes an upto-date list of research groups active in the development of animal-free techniques
and, job vacancies. The site also aims to provide students with the opportunities tocontact research groups to obtain information for their studies and to promote cooperation, networking and the exchange of ideas between researchers.
John Hopkins University Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT)
http://caat.jhsph.edu/
CAAT believes the best science is humane science. Their programs seek toprovide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.
Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research (LDF)
http://www.ldf.org.uk
The objectives of the LDF are to support, sponsor, and fund better methods ofscientific and medical research for testing products and curing disease, which
replace the use of animals and fund areas of non-animal fundamental researchwhich lead to the adoption of non-animal research methodology.
Medical Advances Without Animals Trust (MAWA)
http://mawa-trust.org.au/
Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

28

!
MAWA is a registered charity which aims to advance medical science to improve
human health and therapeutic outcomes without using animals or animal products.
The Trust provides “research and equipment grants, fellowships, scholarships,
bursaries and sponsorships to scientists and scholars throughout Australia in acompetitive award process, and funds a range of other initiatives to further MAWA’s
goals
The Marchig Animal Welfare Trust
http://www.marchigtrust.org
Based in Scotland, the Marchig Animal Welfare Trust is a charity which focuses on
all areas of animal protection from cruelty and abuse. Established in 1989 by
Madame Jeanne Marchig of Geneva, because of her deep concern for nature andanimals, the trust awards grants to a wide variety of projects including "promoting
alternative methods to animal experimentation and their practical implementation”.
National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS)
http://www.navs.org.uk
The NAVS group is comprised of four NGOs working to end the suffering ofanimals: the National Anti-Vivisection Society; Animal Defenders International; theLord Dowding Fund for Humane Research; and the Animal+World Show.
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction ofAnimals in Research (NC3Rs)
http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/
The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction ofAnimals in Research (NC3Rs) is an independent scientific organisation, tasked by
the Government with supporting the UK science base through the application of the
3Rs. The NC3Rs is the UK"s largest funder of 3Rs research. NC3Rs is also behindwww.crackit.org.uk a programme designed to replace, reduce and refine (the 3Rs)
the use of animals in research. It includes a funding competition for research anddevelopment to solve 3Rs challenges identified with sponsors from the industrial andacademic sectors, and a technology partnering hub to accelerate the sharing,
validation and uptake of potential 3Rs methods.
The Netherlands Knowledge Centre on Alternatives to Animal Use (NKCA)
http://www.nkca.nl/
NKCA promotes the application of the 3Rs in the Netherlands. The Centre is acollaboration between the RIVM (National Institute for Public Health) and the
University of Utrecht since 2010 and offers ‘animal testing alternatives’ modules aspart of postgraduate training for professionals. NKCA also advises teachers on the
animal-free testing models available for secondary schools, and recommends
animal-testing alternatives as a potential subject for student projects
The New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS)
http://www.neavs.org/
US-based animal advocacy organization, whose mission is to end the use ofanimals in research, testing and science education and replace it with scientifically
Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

29!
superior and humane non-animal alternatives. NEAVS advocates for all animals inlaboratories and classrooms through education, public outreach, legislation, policychange, and legal action. The organisation is closely affiliated with the American
Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research (AFAAR).
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
http://www.peta.org
PETA continues its campaigns as one of the world's leading animal rights
organisations. A previous Lush prizewinner and nominee, PETA's most recent
victories include engagement with government officials in both China and India to
end animal testing and promote the use of alternatives, as well as direct funding ofresearchers in China to provide training in non-animal methods.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
http://www.pcrm.org/
The PCRM promotes alternatives to animal research and campaigns for the use of
non-animal methods in medical education. They provide a wealth of scientificeducational materials, information on courses and career opportunities andinternships. The PCRM also campaigns on a broader scope for higher standards of
ethical research and the benefits of preventative medicine
Platforms and Funds for Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, Live
Kleveland
http://oslovet.norecopa.no/platform/report/ecopaplatforms.pdf
A report from The Norwegian Reference Centre for Laboratory Animal Science &Alternatives, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway 2005
Juliana von Went Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments
http://www.jvws.org/
The Juliana von Wendt Fund, founded in 1971, is a Finnish charity, which supports
humane methods of scientific and medical research. The Fund awards yearly grants
to Finnish researchers developing and applying non-animal methodology in a wide
range of fields including toxicity testing, cancer research, surgery, antibody
production, computer assisted drug modelling, tissue culture techniques, higher
education etc. Methods replacing exceptionally harmful use of animals areprioritised, as well as projects which are most relevant for human or animal welfare.
From 1996 onwards the Fund has awarded The Scandinavian Research Prize for
Alternatives to Animal Experiments together with the funds of Sweden and Denmark.
SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation)www.safe.org.nz
SAFE are a New Zealand based organisation and previous 2013 ‘Public Awareness’
Lush Prize winner promoting a number of educational materials. They also offer
school speaking services to educate and raise awareness on a variety of animal
rights and welfare issues, including animal experiments.
SET (Foundation for the Promotion of Alternate and Complementary Methods
to Reduce Animal Testing) Germany

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper30!
http://www.stiftung-set.de/index.php
SET based in Germany, offers the opportunity to gain funding for projects which
focus broadly across the 3Rs. SET also have an interest in funding training andeducation initiatives.
SEURAT-1 (Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Tests)
http://www.seurat-1.eu/
SEURAT-1 is an international scale collaborative project funded under the EU
Seventh Framework Programme (FP-7). SEURAT recently hosted its second ‘Young
Scientists Summer School’ in collaboration with ESTIV (European Society of
Toxicology In Vitro) to discuss replacement of repeat dose toxicity testing in animals.
Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)
http://www.sgr.org.uk
SGR are based in the UK and promote ethical awareness in science and technology.
They provide an ‘ethical careers’ section on their website which includes resources
to help scientists and engineers gain a deeper understanding of ethical issues inscience, design and technology and help them choose an ethical path in this area.
Materials include briefings, presentations, articles and other resources, as well as an‘ethical employers’ contact list
The Swedish Fund for Research Without Animal Experiments
http://www.forskautandjurforsok.se/index.php
The Swedish Fund supports alternatives in basic and applied research in various
areas, including the development of computer simulation systems, toxicology, andtraining of laboratory personnel and courses in alternatives. The fund has awarded
over 30 million SEK since 1971 and currently awards projects totalling € 80 000-160000 each year
The 3R Research Foundation (Switzerland)
http://www.forschung3r.ch/en/information
The 3Rs foundation awards annual prizes for research directly impacting on the
3Rs. They have key areas of interest that they emphasise to grant applicants, one ofwhich is alternative methods to acute and chronic toxicity testing

Appendix 2: Example companies which use only non-animal, alternative orhuman based technologies
Asterand (UK and USA)
http://www.asterand.com
Asterand is the leading global provider of high quality, well characterized humantissue and human tissue-based research solutions to drug discovery scientists. Their
mission is to provide human-based solutions to accelerate the identification andvalidation of drug targets and enhance the selection of drug candidates with anincreased likelihood of clinical success.
Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

31!
Biopta (UK)
http://www.biopta.com
Biopta is the leading company focussed on the use of fresh functional human tissues
in drug development. Based in Glasgow, UK, and Maryland, USA, the Biopta Grouphas been providing contract research services to the pharmaceutical industry since
2002 and has established itself as the world leader in the use of fresh functional
human tissues to better predict drug activity prior to clinical trials.
Simugen
http://simugen-global.com/
SimuGen is an international computational biology company focused on predicting
human toxicity early on in drug discovery. The company combines traditional,
genomic, high content (HCS) in vitro screening and traditional cell endpoints, toproduce high throughput screens for use alongside other early ADME (Absorption
Distribution Metabolism Excretion) testing. SimuGen offers comprehensive
toxicology screening services (HT-X™) and high-throughput decision analytics
software (HT-Stream™) for customers’ drug programmes. SimuGen's goal is to meeta major market gap that is not adequately addressed by current toxicogenomics - toaccurately predict toxicity in the early stages of drug discovery.

Lush Young Researcher Prize 2014 – Background Paper

32