Despite changing attitudes towards animal testing and current legislation to protect experimental animals, the rate of animal experiments seems to have changed little in recent years. On May 15–16, 2013, the In Vitro Testing Industrial Platform (IVTIP) held an open meeting to discuss the state of the art in alternative methods, how companies have, can, and will need to adapt and what drives and hinders regulatory acceptance and use. Several key messages arose from the meeting. First, industry and regulatory bodies should not wait for complete suites of alternative tests to become available, but should begin working with methods available right now (e.g., mining of existing animal data to direct future studies, implementation of alternative tests wherever scientifically valid rather than continuing to rely on animal tests) in non-animal and animal integrated strategies to reduce the numbers of animals tested. Sharing of information (communication), harmonization and standardization (coordination), commitment and collaboration are all required to improve the quality and speed of validation, acceptance, and implementation of tests. Finally, we consider how alternative methods can be used in research and development before formal implementation in regulations. Here we present the conclusions on what can be done already and suggest some solutions and strategies for the future.
With summaries in Dutch, Esperanto and English. DOI: 10.4233/uuid:d7132920-346e-47c6-b754-00dc5672b437 "The subject of this study is deformation analysis of the earth's surface (or part of it) and spatial objects on, above or below it. Such analyses are needed in many domains of society. Geodetic deformation analysis uses various types of geodetic measurements to substantiate statements about changes in geometric positions.Professional practice, e.g. in the Netherlands, regularly applies methods for geodetic deformation analysis that have shortcomings, e.g. because the methods apply substandard analysis models or defective testing methods. These shortcomings hamper communication about the results of deformation analyses with the various parties involved. To improve communication solid analysis models and a common language have to be used, which requires standardisation.Operational demands for geodetic deformation analysis are the reason to formulate in this study seven characteristic elements that a solid analysis model needs to possess. Such a model can handle time series of several epochs. It analyses only size and form, not position and orientation of the reference system; and datum points may be under influence of deformation. The geodetic and physical models are combined in one adjustment model. Full use is made of available stochastic information. Statistical testing and computation of minimal detectable deformations is incorporated. Solution methods can handle rank deficient matrices (both model matrix and cofactor matrix). And, finally, a search for the best hypothesis/model is implemented. Because a geodetic deformation analysis model with all seven elements does not exist, this study develops such a model.For effective standardisation geodetic deformation analysis models need: practical key performance indicators; a clear procedure for using the model; and the possibility to graphically visualise the estimated deformations."
In cognitive science, creative ideas are defined as original and feasible solutions in response to problems. A common proposal is that creative ideas are generated across dedicated cognitive pathways. Only after creative ideas have emerged, they can be enacted to solve the problem. We present an alternative viewpoint, based upon the dynamic systems approach to perception and action, that creative solutions emerge in the act rather than before. Creative actions, thus, are as much a product of individual constraints as they are of the task and environment constraints. Accordingly, we understand creative motor actions as functional movement patterns that are new to the individual and/or group and adapted to satisfy the constraints on the motor problem at hand. We argue that creative motor actions are promoted by practice interventions that promote exploration by manipulating constraints. Exploration enhances variability of functional movement patterns in terms of either coordination or control solutions. At both levels, creative motor actions can emerge from finding new and degenerate adaptive motor solutions. Generally speaking, we anticipate that in most cases, when exposed to variation in constraints, people are not looking for creative motor actions, but discover them while doing an effort to satisfy constraints. For future research, this paper achieves two important aspects: it delineates how adaptive (movement) variability is at the heart of (motor) creativity, and it sets out methodologies toward stimulating adaptive variability.
