Hi Joe,
The testing of human subjects is considered very important by
corporations and their subordinants in EPA. The argument posed
below is truly a goofy one. "The study is not expected to to
cause serious or irreversible harm to the subjects" in particular
is a self serving approach.
Pesticide Testing on Human Subjects: Weighing Benefits and Risks
David B. Resnik1 and Christopher Portier2
http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.1289/ehp.7720 available via
I agree that routine use of human subjects to determine NOAEL (no
observable adverse effect level) is unwise. But what do you think
about pharmacokinetic studies on humans that use very low doses? Such
studies can strengthen animal-based estimates of NOAEL by verifying
relevance of the animal model.
Dale
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <listserv@sare.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.