Food for thought … on education in alternative methods in toxicology

Abstract

If you cannot change things, educate those who will. Or, as George Bernard Shaw put it more cynically: “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” the three authors of this Food for thought article have one thing in common: due to the generous support of the Doerenkamp-Zbinden Foundation (http:// www.doerenkamp.ch/en/), we each hold an endowed chair for alternative methods in toxicology, one at each of three prominent universities. Such chairs, established within the faculties of public health, veterinary medicine, and biology, respectively, are the basis for the development of new curricula (Wendel, 2002; Spielmann, 2002; leist, 2006). In the meantime, two more chairs have been established by the DZ Foundation in lausanne, Switzerland, and tiruchirappalli, India, but these do not focus on the field of toxicology. Many subjects considered in this article might be translated to areas other than toxicology, but this would require a case-by-case assessment. The authors have also joined forces with Alan Goldberg of Johns Hopkins University, who established the first academic center for alternative methods 28 years ago (Goldberg, 2009). together these four “ambassadors” form the transatlantic think tank for toxicology (t4) (Fig. 1) aimed at developing concepts for the paradigm shift in toxicology and creating a network for the implementation of the US National Research Council vision (NRC, 2007) of a toxicology for the 21st century (tox21c) (Hartung, 2009a). Here, aspects of teaching alternative approaches and possible synergies shall be explored. We have elaborated, in this series of articles and related publications, on the need for a paradigm shift in toxicology (Hartung and leist, 2008) and on the means to create a new approach, i.e. in vitro (Hartung, 2007a), in vivo (Hartung, 2008a) and in silico (Hartung and Hoffmann, 2009) approaches and their validation (Hartung, 2007b). An assessment of the value of 3Rs approaches has been presented (leist et al., 2008a), as well as opportunities for an evidence-based toxicology (Hartung, 2009b). the case for change has also been made on the basis of economic developments (Bottini et al., 2007; Bottini and Hartung, 2009). Some specifics of the areas of cosmetics (Hartung, 2008b) and food (Hartung and Koeter, 2008) have been addressed. A series of articles outside this Food for thought series complements the picture, e.g., mapping the implementation of tox-21c (Hartung, 2009c), discussing regulatory usefulness of new approaches (Hartung and Daston, 2009), opportunities of stem cells (leist et al., 2008b), the revolutionary character of the ongoing change (Hartung, 2008c), and the needs of ReACH (Rovida and Hartung, 2009; Hartung and Rovida, 2009). But this will not happen and cannot be implemented without changes in mindset and the efforts of people with the right skill sets to implement it. education is the means to achieve these goals. the Swiss cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget said: “the principal goal of education is to create men who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done.” A couple of questions come up immediately: Do we need education on alternatives or on a new toxicology? Do we need to create new courses and curricula or modify the current ones? Whom do we need to target, the next generation (students), current practitioners (post-graduate level), senior management (decision makers), or all of them? Which areas of study and work environments should be targeted: biology, chemistry, medicine, veterinary medicine, other life sciences, risk assessors, lawyers, policy makers, regulators, etc.? How can we achieve coverage of large numbers of target audiences? How to network and synergize in a situation of diaspora, i.e. where the different offers and competence centers are widely dispersed? Is “alternative methods” the right catch phrase or should we label it “new toxicology?” Are we teaching alternatives or are we teaching with