Tag Archives: WC9

FrogHeart returns from the 9th World Congress on alternatives to animal testing

I’m back never having once posted during the 9th World Congress on ‘Alternatives to Animal Testing in the Life Sciences‘. After this experience, I have one piece of advice, never bring a computer with which you are unfamiliar to an event and expect to be able to post.

In any event, there will be a series of five articles published in the fairly near future about alternatives to animal testing. In the meantime, here are a few tidbits about the congress and from the congress sessions:

  • it was big (I estimate at least 1000), with scientists and teams from Japan, UK, Korea, US, Brazil, the Czech republic, and China in particularly high relief although there were representatives from many other countries as well
  • with the March 2013 ban on animal testing for cosmetics, only cruelty-free cosmetics can be sold in Europe (none of the sessions I attended provided information on how one might be certain that a company’s cosmetics were in fact cruelty-free, presumably there is some sort of certification process)
  • human-on-a-chip/organ-on-a-chip work was first attempted by Uwe Marx in Germany in the early 1990s
  • while fewer animals are used for testing in some areas (Europe’s cosmetics ban eliminated some tests), overall use is rising according to Roman Kolar, Animal Welfare Academy, Germany

There will be more over the next few weeks as I prepare the articles.

FrogHeart goes to the 9th World Congress on alternatives to animal testing

Also known as ‘Humane Science in the 21st Century’, the 9th World Congress on ‘Alternatives to Animal Testing in the Life Sciences‘ is being held next week (Aug. 24 – 28, 2014) and FrogHeart will be reporting on various aspects of the work. These posts are sponsored. I realize some folks don’t approve of the practice, which seems odd given that all writing, ultimately, is paid for and sponsored in one fashion or another. While direct sponsorship of a piece of writing can make objectivity (such as it is) more of challenge; it is not beyond the realms of possibility. Conversely, salaried writers can also become compromised due to friendships and loyalties built up over the years or, possibly, due to graft.

All of the posts generated as a consequence of the sponsorship will be identified with the sponsoring agency (SEURAT-1).

For anyone who wishes analyze and compare the posts for bias, here are a few pieces written prior to any contact about the congress:

  • Reducing animal testing for nanotoxicity—PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) presentation at NanoTox 2014 (April 24, 2014)
  • Nanomaterials, toxicology, and alternatives to animal testing (Aug. 22. 2013)
  • Animal love and nanotechnology (Jan. 12, 2012)
  • Global TV (national edition) and nanotechnology; EPA develops a ‘kinder to animals’ nanomaterials research strategy (Oct. 8, 2009); scroll down 25% of the way)

Should you detect undue bias in any of the sponsored pieces, please do let me know.