Talk:National Research Council (United States)

Global warming

I've removed the section about climate change, as it didn't actually have much to do with the NRC itself. I see there was some early negotion via edit summaries in a short revert war. If there are still objections, let's discuss it here.--ragesoss 01:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The NRC is always mentioned in regards to university department rankings, however, i am yet to find a link containing the list of rankings. Any help would be appreciated.--The ZoSo 03:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC) so

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Testing chemicals in live animals can be expensive and slow, and newer test-tube methods may work better, the National Research Council reported on Tuesday. ADVERTISEMENT

Rapid, automated tests called high-throughput assays can replace animals and assess hundreds or thousands of chemicals very quickly, the Council said in its report.

"Recent advances in systems biology, testing in cells and tissues, and related scientific fields offer the potential to fundamentally change the way chemicals are tested for risks they may pose to humans," the Council, which advises Congress and the federal government on scientific matters, said in a statement.

"The new approach would generate more-relevant data to evaluate risks people face, expand the number of chemicals that could be scrutinized, and reduce the time, money, and animals involved in testing," it added.

Most new chemicals, pesticides and many other products are tested using live animals such as rats and mice to see if they cause cancer, skin irritation or other effects.

"But how relevant the animal tests are for humans, usually exposed at much lower doses, has often been called into question," the Council said.

"Moreover, the current approach is time-consuming and costly, resulting in an overburdened system that leaves many chemicals untested, despite potential human exposure to them," it added.

And animal welfare groups question the practice.

So the Environmental Protection Agency asked the independent, nonprofit Research Council to develop a new approach and strategy for toxicity testing.

A committee of toxicologists, pharmacists, environmentalists and other experts appointed by the Council recommends high-throughput assays. They could use human cells for even better accuracy.

"Over time, the need for traditional animal testing could be greatly reduced, and possibly even eliminated someday," the Council statement said.

"For the foreseeable future, however, targeted tests in animals would need to be used to complement the in vitro tests, because current methods cannot yet adequately mirror the metabolism of a whole animal."

See global warming, Climate change in the United States, Climate change policy of the United States, geoengineering, Climate change mitigation and Adaptation to global warming.

99.181.138.228 (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Book review by William Nordhaus

From Nybooks.com resource october 27, 2011 Vol. LVIII, Number 16 page 29-31 ... Energy: Friend or Enemy?

• Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, a report by the National Research Council’s Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption; National Academies Press, 506 pp., available for free at www.nap.edu

99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

National Academies Press is nap.edu 99.109.125.146 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)