Ways to broaden the awareness, consideration and adoption of new approach methodologies (NAMs)

New approach methodologies (NAMs) refer to any technology, methodology, or combination thereof used to inform on chemical hazard and risk, and support replacement, reduction, or refinement of animal use. While the development and application of NAMs has recently increased, their adoption in regulatory decisions is slow and awareness outside the community is low. The Consideration of Alternative Methods Working Group (CAMWG) within the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods focused on understanding how NAMs are considered by stakeholders and identifying ways to encourage adoption. A set of questions was developed to focus stakeholder discussions; CAMWG members met with stakeholder representatives to collect perspectives on how alternatives to traditional animal tests are considered when developing toxicology testing and research programs. Participants represented agrochemical, industrial chemical, consumer products, and pharmaceutical companies; academic researchers in toxicology; and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. All stakeholders currently use or consider NAMs—some more than others. Challenges to broader NAM adoption were identified and five common themes emerged as potential barriers: perception, regulatory acceptance, scientific and technical limitations, education, and financial considerations. Solutions to overcoming barriers were identified, such as tailored education, proactive collaboration and improved communication. Additional recommendations were ensuring fit-for-purpose use of NAMs, developing harmonized national and global acceptance criteria, identifying funding sources, increasing awareness about NAMs strengths and limitations, and a need for a more central repository for NAMs information. Here, we detail these discussions about NAMs use, barriers, and proposed solutions, to successfully expand awareness, consideration, and adoption.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ALTEX
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2505281
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ways to broaden the awareness, consideration and adoption of new approach methodologies (NAMs)

Emily N. Reinke, David Allen, Helena T. Högberg, Nicole Kleinstreuer et al.
ALTEX
Animal testing and alternatives
article

Ways to broaden the awareness, consideration and adoption of new approach methodologies (NAMs)

Emily N. Reinke, David Allen, Helena T. Högberg, Nicole Kleinstreuer, Oluwakemi Oyetade, Elizabeth Farley-Dawson, Jessie Carder, Shannon Marko
article en

Abstract

New approach methodologies (NAMs) refer to any technology, methodology, or combination thereof used to inform on chemical hazard and risk, and support replacement, reduction, or refinement of animal use. While the development and application of NAMs has recently increased, their adoption in regulatory decisions is slow and awareness outside the community is low. The Consideration of Alternative Methods Working Group (CAMWG) within the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods focused on understanding how NAMs are considered by stakeholders and identifying ways to encourage adoption. A set of questions was developed to focus stakeholder discussions; CAMWG members met with stakeholder representatives to collect perspectives on how alternatives to traditional animal tests are considered when developing toxicology testing and research programs. Participants represented agrochemical, industrial chemical, consumer products, and pharmaceutical companies; academic researchers in toxicology; and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. All stakeholders currently use or consider NAMs—some more than others. Challenges to broader NAM adoption were identified and five common themes emerged as potential barriers: perception, regulatory acceptance, scientific and technical limitations, education, and financial considerations. Solutions to overcoming barriers were identified, such as tailored education, proactive collaboration and improved communication. Additional recommendations were ensuring fit-for-purpose use of NAMs, developing harmonized national and global acceptance criteria, identifying funding sources, increasing awareness about NAMs strengths and limitations, and a need for a more central repository for NAMs information. Here, we detail these discussions about NAMs use, barriers, and proposed solutions, to successfully expand awareness, consideration, and adoption.

ALTEXVol. 42(4)
Office of the Secretary of Defense (US), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US), National Agricultural Library (US), Cosmetics Europe (BE), Suzhou Industrial Park Vocational Technical College (CN)
National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Animal testing and alternatives
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.