15. “A New Paradigm for University Animal Research at Jaume I” by André Ménache; an article published in *Responsabilidad Social Universitaria*, issued by Jaume I University in November 2018. This collective work—number 57 in the *Col·lecció Humanitats* series—compiles summaries of lectures given at Jaume I University in Castellón de la Plana, Spain, on November 30, 2017. In this article, André Ménache outlines the European regulatory framework (Directive 2010/63/EU) and the specific rules governing the existence and operation of ethics committees within research institutions. Following Sweden’s example, he calls for the appointment of civil society representatives and experts in alternatives to animal experimentation to serve on university ethics committees. The article, written and published in English, appears on pages 149–154 of the volume (which is primarily in Spanish) and is available for PDF download at https://e-ujier.uji.es/pls/www/!GCPPA00.GCPPR0002?lg=ES&id_art=1669.
14. “The European Citizens’ Stop Vivisection Initiative and the Revision of Directive 2010/63/EU” by André Ménache; an article published in *ATLA (Alternatives to Laboratory Animals)*, August 2016, Vol. 44, pp. 383–390. We provide a translation of the article’s abstract below. The full translation is available at https://antidote-europe.eu/public/commentaire-ICE-revision-directive.pdf.
Animal experimentation is presented to the public as an ongoing debate between scientific researchers on one side and the animal protection community on the other. An opportunity to break this pattern arose in the form of a European Citizens’ Initiative, “Stop Vivisection,” which challenges Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The Initiative’s manifesto calls on the European Commission to replace the existing Directive with a new proposal that would eliminate animal experimentation and mandate the use of human data as predictive modalities for studying human diseases and drug responses. Although the Initiative succeeded in gathering the required one million signatures, the European Commission rejected the proposal. Nevertheless, some lessons learned from the Initiative could prove relevant to the review of Directive 2010/63/EU, which is scheduled for 2017.
13. Commentary: Lessons from the Analysis of Non-human Primates for Understanding Human Aging and Neurodegenerative Diseases; by André Ménache and Anne Beuter; article published in *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience* on February 2, 2016 (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00033/full). The authors question the role played by the use of primates—in which a specific brain region has been destroyed via the injection of a toxic substance—in the study of Parkinson’s disease in humans and the discovery of new human therapies. They point out that this “monkey model” was only studied well after observations had been made in human patients; therefore, it could not have played the role attributed to it by many researchers regarding the development of electrical stimulation methods for specific brain areas to treat Parkinson’s disease. They also highlight the failure of human trials conducted after motor disorders in baboons were alleviated through electrical stimulation of the motor cortex: the same treatment did not yield the same effects in humans. Finally, they review the modern computer models used to develop methods of electrical brain stimulation for treating motor disorders associated with Parkinson’s disease.
12. The effects of the fungicides fenhexamid and myclobutanil on SH-SY5Y and U-251 MG human cell lines; by David A. Nagel, Eric J. Hill, John O’Neil, Alexandra Mireur, and Michael D. Coleman; article published in *Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology* in November 2014 (Volume 38, pp. 968–976; available online from September 16, 2014). Although members of our team do not appear on the author list, Antidote Europe is acknowledged as a sponsor. This study was conducted by Professor Michael Coleman’s team, with whom we had previously collaborated (see publication no. 6). Using toxicogenomics and other human cell study methods, the research revealed the mechanisms of action of these two fungicides on our neurons and glial cells. Understanding these mechanisms would not have been possible using “classic” animal-based toxicology approaches. Both fungicides are widely used in agriculture, particularly in viticulture. We featured this article in the March 2015 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 42, page 4).
11. Ethical and legal perspectives on alternatives; by André Ménache; abstract presented at the 9th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, published in *ALTEX Proceedings*, 2014, Volume 3, No. 1, p. 242. This congress took place in Prague from August 24 to 28, 2014. A full French version of this abstract appeared in the March 2015 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 42, page 13).
10. Letter to the Editor regarding “A process-based review of mouse models of pulmonary hypertension”; by André Ménache and Anne Keogh; letter published in *Pulmonary Circulation* (April–June 2013 issue). We featured this article in the September 2013 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 36, page 13).
9. The PIP scandal: an analysis of the process of quality control that failed to safeguard women from the health risks; by Victoria Martindale and André Ménache; scientific article published in the *Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine* on May 8, 2013 (http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/106/5/173.full). We featured this article in the June 2013 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 35, page 5).
8. Systematic Reviews of Animal Models: Methodology versus Epistemology; by Ray Greek and André Ménache; scientific article published in the *International Journal of Medical Sciences* on January 11, 2013 (www.medsci.org/v10p0206.pdf). Announced in the March 2013 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote*, this article was presented—along with French-translated excerpts from the abstract—in the June 2013 issue (No. 35, page 4). It was translated into French by Hélène Sarraseca in June 2017. It is now available in its entirety in French and can be downloaded as a PDF at https://antidote-europe.eu/public/IntJMedSci.pdf. This text—accessible to non-scientists as well—is more relevant than ever, given recent arguments by some researchers justifying the use of animals in biomedical research: to improve statistical analysis, they propose increasing the number of animals used in their studies in order to obtain results they claim would be more reliable. This overlooks the true reasons why animal experimentation is a failure. The article by Ray Greek and André Ménache will help you understand these reasons, enabling you to clearly articulate them should you have the opportunity to discuss the issue with researchers who defend the use of animals in human biomedical research.
7. REACH, animal testing, and the precautionary principle; by André Ménache and Candida Nastrucci; a scientific article published in *Medicolegal and Bioethics* on August 3, 2012 (www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=10625). We presented this article, along with some translated excerpts, in the September 2012 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 32, page 5). A complete French version is available at https://antidote-europe.eu/public/Medleg&bioethFR.pdf
6. A few years after implementing our PTS, we once again demonstrated the reliability of modern toxicology methods that do not rely on animal experimentation—this time for testing chemical mixtures. While it had long been known that our blood (including that of newborns) contains dozens of chemical substances capable of combining to produce effects different from those of the individual substances alone, we were among the first to propose methods for evaluating such chemical cocktails. This concerned our “Cancer Test” project, as we primarily highlighted potential carcinogenic effects. Following the work conducted at Aston University, we published: *A Preliminary Investigation into the Impact of a Pesticide Combination on Human Neuronal and Glial Cell Lines In Vitro*; by Michael D. Coleman, John D. O’Neil, Elizabeth K. Woehrling, Oscar Bate Akide Ndunge, Eric J. Hill, André Ménache, and Claude J. Reiss; a scientific article published in *PLoS ONE* in August 2012 (www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0042768). We presented this work in the September 2012 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 32, page 2), as well as on our website here and here. This work was brought to the attention of the mainstream media—notably via a press release—and was covered by several media outlets (see our “In the Media” section for the 2012 period).
5. *Are Animal Models Relevant in Modern Psychiatry?*; by André Ménache; a scientific article published in *Psychiatric Times* on February 28, 2012 (www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/2039315). We presented this article and French translations of selected excerpts in the June 2012 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 31, page 9).
4. *Animal models in the age of personalized medicine*; by Ray Greek, André Ménache, and Mark J. Rice; a scientific article published in *Personalized Medicine* in January 2012 (www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/pme.11.89). We presented this article and a French translation of its summary in the March 2012 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 30, page 10).
3. In addition to our own research, we have authored or co-authored several articles published in the international scientific press—specifically, articles criticizing animal research or promoting modern methods. Our first critique, written in collaboration with other researchers, appeared in 2011: “An analysis of the Bateson Review of research using nonhuman primates” by Ray Greek, Lawrence Hansen, and André Ménache; a scientific article published in *Medicolegal and Bioethics* on December 5, 2011 (www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=8799). We presented the background of this article and a summary of its content in the March 2012 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (No. 30, page 8).
2. This initial article and the resulting bibliographic research led to our Scientific Toxicology Program (PTS). This program consists of a testing protocol based on a rapid, low-cost toxicogenomics approach—a method we developed as early as 2004, which Claude Reiss presented at the 2007 international conference on toxicogenomics, and which the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences finally decided to promote… in 2013! (see the December 2013 issue of *La Notice d’Antidote*). To demonstrate the reliability of the PTS, we used it to test 28 chemical substances that are among the most dangerous and prevalent in our environment. While these findings have not been published in scientific journals, the results for 22 substances were recorded in the specialized international MIAME (Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment) database; accession numbers E-TOXM-31 for the experiments and A-MEXP-798 for the DNA microarray model. We published a full, accessible version of the PTS and the results obtained in the special issue of *La Notice d’Antidote* (November 2005), and an abridged version here.
1. Shortly before the founding of Antidote Europe, Claude Reiss, André Ménache, and other researchers published an initial article proposing a method to assess the toxicity of chemical substances using modern techniques that are reliable for humans: “Scientific Toxicity Assessment of pesticides, drugs and other chemicals” by Claude Reiss, André Ménache, Simone Parvez, and Hasan Parvez; a scientific article published in *Biogenic Amines*, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 41–54 (2003). The full version of this article can be viewed here, and a simplified version in French here.
