Nanotechnology is a technique which makes use of infinitesimal particles: structures the size of 1 nanometer (nm), or one-billionth of a meter. To put that into perspective: a human hair is 80,000 nm wide; a red globule about 7,000 nm and a water molecule has a diameter of almost 0.3 nm.

This new technology has great potential. Take self-cleaning clothes for example, or innovations in medicine, waste management and the tiniest of technical devices. Nanoparticles have been around for ages. They are commonly found in the air and are released when you light a candle for instance, or when you toast a slice of bread. An increasing number of products, up to 300 by now, contain artificial nanostructures. Examples are cosmetics, like sunscreen. They are also found in laptops, mobile phones and pacemakers. And in socks, tennis racquets and detergents. The new technology boasts many advantages, but it also raises issues concerning its potential effects on humans, animals and the environment.

Animal testing is currently taking place in order to investigate the health effects of nanoparticles. It is a proven fact that some nanoparticles are harmful. Examples are asbestos and carbon black in printer toners. Safety evaluation of nanotechnology products differs from present-day risk assessments. As well as the amounts of substance taken in by the body (expressed in weight), other factors of importance in nanotechnology are the shape, the surface properties and the size of the nanoparticle. Hence, different testing methods are required. But why start with animal testing, only to replace those tests later with methods sparing laboratory animals? The Dutch Society for the Replacement of Animal Testing (Proefdiervrij) believes that available research data on nanoparticles collected through animal testing should be shared by companies, so as to avoid duplication of testing.

Experience has demonstrated that animal testing is full of constraints and incurs high costs. This kindles the demand for more methods not involving laboratory animals. Nanotechnology offers us a great opportunity. Animal testing must be limited, whereas patient and consumer safety must be guaranteed. In order to attain this, the first priority is to validate screening tests which do not involve laboratory animals. Because toxicity testing of nanoparticles is still at a developing stage, scientists should focus on methods not involving animals. Cooperation between nanotechnologists and toxicologists, for example, would enable them to gain insight into the possible detrimental effects of nanostructures at an early stage. 

Naturally, the Dutch Society for the Replacement of Animal Testing (Proefdiervrij) opposes animal testing. That is the very reason we were established in 1897. But we are not against health, nor against safety. Medicine must cure, without nasty side effects. And our detergents should not cause irritation, or harm the environment. All too often, when investigating new materials or technologies, we revert to the old and trusted methods of animal testing. It is no more than an intermediate step, and it does not eliminate all the risks subject to investigation. The Dutch Society for the Replacement of Animal Testing is of the opinion that this step in the process needs to be replaced. Nanotechnology opens up excellent opportunities for a pilot. The aim is to ensure human, animal and environmental safety, without carrying out experiments on animals. If this proves possible, then, for sure, wider applications are also within reach. In order to achieve this, additional resources need to be invested in methods not involving laboratory animals. Not only scientists and politicians must be made aware of this, but the public at large. An example is the initiative by Unilever called Assuring Safety without Animal Testing (ASAT). The ASAT programme is designed to protect human and environmental health through sustainable and transparent means. The programme uses models which guarantee the safety of chemical products. It is expected that the application of these methods will eventually be extended to other fields.

The Dutch Society for the Replacement of Animal Testing petitions for the development of techniques which do not involve laboratory animals, in order to investigate the effects of nanotechnology. Why invent testing strategies on animals first, only to replace them later? We believe it is high time for non-animal test methods.