Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 6, 2026

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Published on: December 30, 2010

Goodbye to the bioassay.

Jay I Goodman¹

¹Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology , Michigan State University , East Lansing , MI 48824 , USA . Email: goodman3@msu.edu ; Tel: +1-517-353-9346.

Toxicology Research

|August 10, 2018

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

In Memoriam: James E. Gibson (1941-2025).

Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology·2025

Same author

Categorizing the characteristics of human carcinogens: a need for specificity.

Archives of toxicology·2021

Same author

Incorporation of an Epigenetic Evaluation into Safety Assessment: What we First Need to Know.

Current opinion in toxicology·2019

Same author

Correction: Goodbye to the bioassay.

Toxicology research·2018

Same author

Obfuscating transparency?

Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP·2018

Same author

Response to Druwe and Burgoon, 2016 Letter to the Editor in Archives of Toxicology.

Archives of toxicology·2016

The standard two-year rodent bioassay for cancer risk lacks scientific validity. New approaches, focusing on dose-response and mechanism of action, offer a more rational way to assess human carcinogen potential.

Area of Science:

Toxicology
Carcinogenesis
Risk Assessment

Background:

The traditional two-year rodent bioassay is widely used for evaluating potential human carcinogens.
This method relies on two key assumptions: rodent carcinogens are human carcinogens, and high-dose results predict low-dose effects.
These assumptions lack a strong scientific foundation.

Purpose of the Study:

To critically evaluate the scientific validity of the standard two-year rodent bioassay.
To highlight the limitations and flawed assumptions of the rodent bioassay.
To advocate for alternative approaches in carcinogen identification and risk assessment.

Main Methods:

Reevaluation of National Toxicology Program (NTP) bioassay data.
Analysis of the impact of varying rodent group sizes on bioassay outcomes.

More Related Videos

Bone Conditioned Medium: Preparation and Bioassay

Bone Conditioned Medium: Preparation and Bioassay

Published on: July 8, 2015

A Simple Bioassay for the Evaluation of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors

A Simple Bioassay for the Evaluation of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors

Published on: March 15, 2016

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 6, 2026

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Bioassays for Monitoring Insecticide Resistance

Published on: December 30, 2010

Bone Conditioned Medium: Preparation and Bioassay

Bone Conditioned Medium: Preparation and Bioassay

Published on: July 8, 2015

A Simple Bioassay for the Evaluation of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors

A Simple Bioassay for the Evaluation of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors

Published on: March 15, 2016

Review of existing proposals for alternative methods, including decision trees incorporating dose-response and mechanism of action (MOA).

Main Results:

The rodent bioassay's core assumptions are scientifically inaccurate.
Increasing rodent group size in bioassays dramatically increases the number of positive results, suggesting the method can induce carcinogenicity.
Virtually all tested chemicals can be made into rodent carcinogens under bioassay conditions.

Conclusions:

The two-year rodent bioassay is not a scientifically sound method for identifying human carcinogens or informing risk assessment.
Alternative approaches, such as decision trees emphasizing dose-response and MOA, provide a rational basis for evaluating cancer risk.
A shift towards more scientifically robust methods is necessary for accurate human health risk assessment.