Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-effectiveness of short-term tests for carcinogenicity

  • Commentary
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Most chemicals to which we are exposed are not properly tested for carcinogenicity. The latest methods of in vitro testing provide a way of screening with sufficient accuracy to remedy this situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lave, L. B. The Strategy of Social Regulation (Brookings, Washington, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lave, L. B. Quantitative Risk Assessment for Regulation (Brookings, Washington, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Calkins, D. R., Dixon, R. L., Gerber, C. B., Zarin, D. & Omenn, G. S. J. nat. Cancer Inst. 64 169–176 1980).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ruckelshaus, W. D. Issues in Science and Technology 1, 19–38 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Weinstein, M. C. Public Policy 27, 333–343 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Regulations Relating to Environmental Chemicals (OECD, Paris, (1977).

  7. deSerres, F. J. & Ashby, J. (eds) Evaluation of Short-Term Tests for Carcinogens: Report of the International Collaborative Program (Elsevier, New York, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Research Council Risk Analysis in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (National Academy Press, Washington, 1983).

  9. Friedman, R. D. Sensitive Populations and Environmental Standards: A Legal Analysis (Conservation Foundation, Washington, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Omenn, G. S. J. occup. Med. 24, 369–374 (1982).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans: Chemicals, Industrial Processes and Industries Associated with Cancer in Humans (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1982).

  12. National Toxicology Program Third Annual Report on Carcinogens (US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, September, 1983).

  13. Ames, B. N. Science 204, 587–593 (1979).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Fed. Register 49 (100), 21594–21661 (1984).

  15. Purchase, I. F. U. Mutat. Res. 99, 53–71 1982).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. National Toxicology Program Review of Current DHHS, DOE, and EPA Research Related to Toxicology (FY 1983) (US Department of HHS, Washington, 1983).

  17. Shelby, M. D., & Stasiewicz, S. Envir. Mutagen. 6, 871–876 (1984).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Waters, M. D., Garrett, N. E., Covone-de-Serres, C. M., Howard, B. E., & Stack, H. F. Genetic Toxicology of Some Known or Suspected Human Carcinogens, in Chemical Mutagens: Principles and Methods for their Detection Vol. 8 (ed. de Serres, F. J.) 261–341 (Plenum, New York, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goldstein, M. & Dillon, W. R. Discrete Discriminant Analysis (Wiley, New York, 1978).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Lave, L. B., Omenn, G. S., Heffernan, K. D. & Dranoff, G. J. Am. Col. Toxicol. 2, 125–130 1983).

  21. Chankong, V., Haimes, Y. Y., Rosenkranz, H. S., & Pet-Edwards, J. Mutat. Res. 153, 135–166. (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pet-Edwards, J., Chankong, V., Rosenkranz, H. S. & Haimes, Y. Y. Mutat. Res. 153, 187–200 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Williams, G. D., Laspia, M. F., & Dunkel, V. C. Mutat. Res. 97, 359, (1982).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. National Toxicology Program Tech. Bull 1(3) 2 (1980).

  25. Bridges, B. S. in Screening Tests in Chemical Carcinogenesis (eds Montesano, R., Bartsch, H., Tomatis, L.) 549–568 (International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Marcus, W. L. in Carcinogenesis, A Comprehensive Survey, Vol. 3: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (eds Jones, P. W. & Fruendenthal, R. I.) 469–472 (Raven, New York, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Office of Technology Assessment Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks from the Environment 135–136 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, 1981).

  28. Weisburger, J. H. & Williams, G. M. Science 214, 401–407, (1981).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hoel, D. G., Kaplan, N. L. & Anderson, M. W. Science 219, 1032–1037, (1983).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Crump, K. S., Hoel, D. G., Langley, C. H. & Peto, R. Cancer Res. 36, 2973–2979, (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Omenn, G. S. in Molecular and Cellular Approaches to Understanding Mechanisms of Toxicity (ed Tashjian, A. H. Jr) 224–245, (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  32. National Research Council Toxicity Testing (National Academy Press, Washington, 1984).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. James H. Higgins Professor of Economics in the Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University,

    Lester B. Lave

  2. Dean of the School of Public Health and Professor of Medicine and Environmental Health, University of Washington,

    Gilbert S. Omenn

Authors
  1. Lester B. Lave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gilbert S. Omenn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lave, L., Omenn, G. Cost-effectiveness of short-term tests for carcinogenicity. Nature 324, 29–34 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1038/324029a0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/324029a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation