CAAT Newsletter: Vol. 15, No. 1, Fall 1997

Director's Diary

By Dr. Alan M. Goldberg

CAAT - Past, Present, and Future*

Some might ask if the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing is still necessary? The testing issue is no longer in the news because many of the early challenges have been so successfully met. New testing schemes have been developed, and many companies now market products without animal testing. As a result, public concern about this issue is at its lowest levels in years. The role of alternatives has become so well-recognized that the U.S., European, and international regulatory communities themselves are in the business of validating alternative tests. I think we all recognize that CAAT played a substantial role in these successes. Nonetheless, I believe that CAAT is now more necessary than ever.

The media feeds on novelty--the new, the exciting, the different. Fifteen years ago, the idea that animals should not be used to test your products was news. Today it is a mainstream belief and therefore no longer "news." The American public expects and is by now convinced that there are alternatives to animal use for product development and safety testing and trusts that companies are using them.

One of the most significant accomplishments of CAAT has been to create a process, a way for each of our constituencies, with their differing agendas, to come together and craft solutions to our mutual problems. Sixteen years ago, the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) came to Hopkins in crisis. Activists were demanding that they stop animal testing and consumers were responding to that message. We provided a solution to that problem, but we also provided the executive function to provide for the future -- that is, a way to identify potential future problems and have solutions, or at least the approach in place. In public health, we call this prevention.

This executive function is to make sure that we provide the thinking and approaches to issues three to five years in the future. CAAT is unique in this arena. No other group or organization in the United States has this perspective, although clearly there are many programs and groups both in Europe and the United States that are involved in alternatives issues.

Recently, we asked our board members to complete the following sentence: "CAAT is..." Here are some of the answers we received: "...the organization which has done the most to advance the science of alternatives methods..." "...the center for innovative advances in education (public, private, and institutional) on alternatives..." "...the U.S. academic institution with the longest standing involvement in interacting with government, industry, academia, and advocacy groups in the area of alternatives to animal testing..."

And so forth.

I'd like to stress that CAAT's core values have not changed since our formation. During the first 15 years, we established in vitro sciences as a discipline by enabling and focusing research in this area at the university. We provided a newsletter that informed readers in academia, industry, government, and the general public as to what we did and the true status of alternatives. We also met with federal representatives who were appointed to our board, requested that they bring their staff together to meet with us, and held informational programs--which were in some cases attended by several hundred agency personnel. During this time, also, we have witnessed incredible changes in the United States. The formation of ICCVAM and the FDA Subcommittee on Toxicology are but two examples. Is CAAT alone responsible for these changes? No. Did we play a key role? Absolutely.

As I said earlier, the public perception is that alternatives to animals exist. I doubt that any company not currently using animals will go back to using animals. But new chemicals will force companies to use animals unless new methods that work are developed. In the past, the CAAT grants program has funded projects through starter grants that were then further developed with funding from other sources. This approach has been highly successful in facilitating the development of a new generation of scientists working in vitro. This activity should be enhanced, and we should bring research methods to "off-the-shelf" assays.

Since its creation, CAAT has participated in the area of validation and regulatory activities. As new participants become involved, CAAT should play the role of peer-reviewer. We should provide an international forum for government and industry to interact. To this end, I will be doing a short sabbatical at the Organization of Economic and Community Development (OECD) next year. OECD has 29 member-nations, including the United States.

In the area of education, again, we have worked to support our core values. Our newest and most exciting development is the Altweb Project, which has the potential to inform everyone from the bench scientist to the general public about alternatives. Let me point out that this is yet another example where we brought together industry, government, and the animal protection community and provided leadership for the program.

CAAT has enjoyed scientific credibility from the beginning because of its association with the Johns Hopkins University. In the future, we envision a major program developing at Hopkins that will provide course work, research, and an enhanced presence at the university. The need for a major education/Hopkins presence is obvious. The training of students in issue-driven research provides the route to continued leadership and credibility. It will allow us to enhance the unique niche we have developed.

Now, I believe, is the time for us to identify common concerns and potential problems and to begin to reshape CAAT's mission, policy, and programs for the future.

* Remarks from a presentation to the CAAT Advisory Board on June 12, 1997.