x



Share this page.

2004 Continuing Education Courses

The Continuing Education Program offers a widerange of courses that cover stateoftheart knowledge in toxicology, as well as new developments in toxicology and related disciplines. Courses can be applied toward certifying and licensing board requirements and may also be used for recertification with the American Board of Toxicology (ABT). Both basic and advanced course topics are offered. The basic course is intended to provide a broad overview of an area or to assist individuals in learning new techniques or approaches. The advanced course is intended to be of interest to individuals with previous knowledge of the subject or already working in the field.


Herbals and Dietary Supplements in Athletic Performance Enhancement: Fact vs. Fiction

Sunrise MiniCourse 1

Chairperson(s): Alfred F. Fuciarelli, Battelle, Richland, WA.


Herbal products and dietary supplements have been used for years in an attempt to enhance athletic performances. However, this usage has not always been based on scientific data. Recent tragic cases, such as those involving ephedra supplements, have highlighted the need for an unbiased assessment of available data and additional research into their actions and effects. This presentation will discuss the various products used for athletic performance enhancement such as ephedra, androstenedione and androgens, creatine, gamma hydroxybutyrate, dimethylglycine, and others. Their promoted uses, purported mechanism of action, adverse effects/toxicities, and available clinical data will be presented to provide a perspective of what is known and areas in need of additional research. Additionally, the current regulatory status will be discussed and what factors may impact upon changes in this status.

  • Herbals and Dietary Supplements in Athletic Performance Enhancement: Fact vs. Fiction, Timothy S. Tracy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Basic Neurotoxicology

AM 2 Basic

Chairperson(s): Evelyn C. Tiffany-Castiglioni, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX and William Slikker, Jr., National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR.

Endorsed by:
Mechanisms Specialty Section
Metals Specialty Section
Neurotoxicology Specialty Section*

Neurotoxicity may be defined as any adverse effect on the structure or function of the central and/or peripheral nervous system by a biological, chemical, or physical agent. Adverse effects can include both unwanted effects and any alteration from baseline that diminishes the ability of an organism to survive, reproduce or adapt to its environment. Neurotoxic effects may be permanent or reversible, and may result from direct or indirect actions on the nervous system. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to assess neurotoxicity due to the complex and diverse functions of the nervous system. Many of the relevant effects can be measured by neurobiological, neurophysiological, neuropathological or behavioral techniques, as well as epidemiological approaches. After a general overview of neurotoxicity assessment from genes to human response, this basic course will present in greater depth the methods used to study populations, individual animals, cells, and genomes. Each speaker will review the basic concepts underlying the methodological approach presented. Selected neurotoxicants, including heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and drugs of abuse, will be used to illustrate principles. The first two lectures will address neurotoxic effects as studied by epidemiology in human populations and behavioral assessment in animal models, respectively. The next lecture will address the cellular responses of neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes to neurotoxicants. The course will be concluded with a description of a molecular approach to neurotoxicology including genomics. This course will be of interest to a broad range of scientists including drug developers, pharmacologists, neuroscientists, psychologists, regulators, and toxicologists.
  • Basic Neurotoxicology Overview: From Genes to Cognition, William Slikker, Jr., National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR.
  • Assessing Neurotoxicity of Methyl Mercury and PCBs in Humans: The Epidemiological Perspective, Susan L. Schantz, University of Illinois Urbana, Urbana, IL.
  • Specific Behavioral Measures in Identifying ChemicallyInduced Cognitive Dysfunction in Animal Models: Relevance to Humans, Merle G. Paule, National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR.
  • CellSpecific Responses to Lead and Other Neurotoxicants, Evelyn C. TiffanyCastiglioni, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
  • Molecular Strategies for Neurotoxicity Assessment: Beyond the One Compound, One Mechanism Approach, James P. O'Callaghan, CDCNIOSH, Morgantown, WV.

Tools for Functional Genomics

(Repeats as PM10)

AM 3 Advanced

Chairperson(s): Hollie I. Swanson, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

The goal of this course is to discuss cuttingedge tools and techniques that may be used in ascribing hierarchical, functional analyses of gene products following DNA microarray experiments. First, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of pharmacological and molecular tools (i.e., antagonists, dominant negative approaches, siRNA). We will also discuss the means by which the molecular tools may be introduced into the cell or animal model, including the use of retro and adenoviruses. Our second presentation will use data obtained in the laboratory to demonstrate the approaches that are typically used for determining whether the observed changes in mRNA of the gene product of interest occurs at the transcriptional or posttranscriptional levels. The third presentation will focus on use of the chromatin immunoprecipitation (CHIP) assay to demonstrate whether candidate transcription factors are involved in the regulation of the gene product of interest. Finally, our last presentation will introduce a novel approach, chemical genetics, that may be used to either activate or inactivate target gene products in able to discern their functional role(s) either the toxic or diseaserelated events.
  • Overview, Hollie I. Swanson, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
  • Approaches to be Used to Discriminate Between Transcriptional and PostTranscriptional Gene Regulation, E. David Thompson, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
  • Analysis of Gene Regulation Using the Chromatin Immunoprecipitation Assay, Yanan Tian, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
  • Use of Chemical Genetics in Functional Genomics, Kyung Bo Kim, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Of Mice and Magnets: Metabonomics Technology in Safety Assessment

AM 4 Basic

Chairperson(s): Donald G. Robertson, Pfizer Global Research & Development, Ann Arbor, MI and Lois D. LehmanMcKeeman, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ.

Endorsed by:
Molecular Biology Specialty Section*
Risk Assessment Specialty Section

Although metabonomics as a technology has been in the literature for over a decade, it is only in the past 3 to 4 years that the technology has gained widespread attention within the industrial sector. Metabonomics as a topic was introduced to the Society in a wellreceived sunrise minicourse in 2000. This was followed by a highly attended IAT symposium and poster session on metabonomics at the 2002 meeting. The technology has reached the level of maturity such that a full CE course is called for. The objectives of this basic level course will be to introduce the technology to SOT meeting attendees unfamiliar with it, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of the technology in a practical way. The presentations will be from a toxicologist’s perspective—communicating essential principles, but will avoid NMR and statistical jargon. The course will be primarily from a pharmaceutical development point of view, but will be broad enough to provide useful information for anyone interested in the technology.

  • Metabonomics and the Evaluation of Drug Safety, Donald G. Robertson, Pfizer Global Research & Development, Ann Arbor, MI.
  • Metabonomic Applications in Mechanistic and Predictive Toxicology, Lois D. LehmanMcKeeman, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ.
  • Now That I Have a Metabonomics Data—What Does it Mean?, John D. Baker, Pfizer, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
  • Regulatory Perspective on Incorporation of New Technologies into Safety Assessment, Daniel A. Casciano, National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR.

Functional Flow Cytometry: Applications in Toxicology

(Repeats as PM12)

AM05 Advanced

Chairperson(s): Leigh Ann Burns Naas, Pfizer Global Research and Development, San Diego, CA and Nancy I. Kerkvliet, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Flow cytometry provides a powerful tool for analyzing multiple characteristics of individual cells in a complex mixture of cell types without having to physically separate the cells. Yet, even though each cell is examined individually, the flow cytometer can process thousands of cells within a few seconds, allowing superior sampling of the population as compared to microscopic counting. The myriad of phenotypic and functional characteristics of cells that can be measured by flow cytometry continues to expand with the development of novel fluorescent probes to a variety of cellular components. The field of immunotoxicology has been greatly influenced by the use of flow cytometry with applications ranging from screening for toxic effects on immune cells to elucidating the mechanisms of toxic action on specific subpopulations of cells. However, other areas of toxicology are beginning to recognize the value of flow cytometry for mechanistic investigations as well. To address this growing interest, the intent of this course is to introduce the audience to novel applications of flow cytometry that have been used to assess tissue injury and mechanisms of toxicity at the whole animal, cellular, and biochemical levels. Although the context of many of the examples will emanate from immunotoxicology studies, each speaker will focus less on the immunology and more on the methods used in their studies that are broadly applicable to other areas of toxicology. Examples of methods to be covered include: apoptosis, oxidative stress, membrane integrity and fluidity, cell cycling using carboxyfluorescein (CFSE), and cell signaling.

  • Introduction to Flow Cytometry, Carl D. Bortner, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC.
  • Assessment of MacrophageInduced Tissue Injury in Liver/Lung by Flow Cytometry, Debra Laskin, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
  • In Vivo Assessment of T Cell Activation Using Flow Cytometry, Nancy I. Kerkvliet, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
  • Flow Cytometric Approaches to Understanding Mechanisms of Toxicant Action, Scott W. Burchiel, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

Understanding Lifespan Changes in Form and Function of the Female Reproductive System to Assess

AM06 Basic

Chairperson(s): Barbara J. Davis, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC and Kimberley A. Treinen, Schering Plough Research Institute, Lafayette, NJ.


Endorsed by:
Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology Specialty Section*

This course reviews the basic morphology and endocrinology of the female reproductive system in rodents and primates as a basis for interpreting toxicity. Each of the 4 lectures will emphasize fundamental changes and vulnerabilities of the reproductive tract over the lifespan of the female. Both rodent and nonhuman primates will be discussed with respect to relevance to humans. The first lecture covers embryological development of the female reproductive system and will include key developmental and molecular events with an emphasis on timing of events in rodents and primates and potential periods of susceptibility to toxicity. The second lecture details the morphology and endocrinology of the female reproductive tract in rodents and will relate hormones and histology of the adult rodent reproductive tract from the onset of puberty to reproductive senescence and important sites of toxicity. The third lecture details the morphology and endocrinology of the female reproductive tract in nonhuman primates with emphasis on similarities and differences to rodents. The final lecture will combine the information of the first lectures and analyze issues of study design, endpoints to examine and interpretation of results in assessing female reproductive toxicity data. Embryological Development of the Female Reproductive System, Philip M. Iannaccone, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Children's Memorial Institute for Education and Research, Chicago, IL.

  • Morphology and Endocrinology of the Female Reproductive Tract in Rodents, Pamela E. Blackshear, Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC.
  • Morphology and Endocrinology of the Female Reproductive Tract in Nonhuman Primates, J. Mark Cline, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, WinstonSalem, NC.
  • Interpreting Female Reproductive Toxicity Data, Patrick J. Wier, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA.

The Safety Assessment of Proteins: Applications to Agricultural

AM07 Basic

Chairperson(s): Bruce G. Hammond, Monsanto Company, Saint Louis, MO.

Endorsed by:
Food Safety Specialty Section*
Regulatory and Safety Evaluation Specialty Section
Risk Assessment Specialty Section
Biotechnology has made it possible to introduce proteins into food crops to achieve desired biological effects. Introduced proteins can impart important agronomic properties such as tolerance to topically applied herbicides to control weeds or protection of food crops against insect pest damage. Enzymes can be introduced into food crops that enhance the existing production of essential nutrients, or introduce nutrients into food crops that have potential health benefits. Proteins are also produced by microorganisms via fermentation such as enzymes used in food processing or pharmaceuticals (i.e. somatotropins) used to enhance the efficiency of milk production in dairy cows. A group of experts in the field of protein safety assessment will share their experience and learnings. The subject of protein allergy assessment will not be covered in this course as it has been thoroughly addressed in other courses and workshops held at SOT meetings. Toxicologists who attend this course will have a better understanding of the safety assessment strategies that have been developed for proteins in relationship to food safety. These strategies will differ in some respect from traditional safety testing approaches used for chemical xenobiotics that come in contact with food.

  • ILSI Expert Scientific Paper on Protein Safety Assessment, Barbara Petersen, Exponent, Inc., Washington, DC.
  • Safety Assessment of Protein PlantIncorporated Protectants, John Kough, USEPA, Washington, DC.
  • Evaluating the Safety of Enzymes Used in Food Processing, Michael Pariza, University of WisconsinMadison, Madison, WI.
  • The Safety Assessment of Proteins Introduced into Food/Feed Crops, James D. Astwood, Monsanto Company, St Louis, MO.

Safety Pharmacology After & S7B

PM08 Basic

Chairperson(s): Lewis B. Kinter, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE and Alan Bass, Schering Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, NJ.

Endorsed by:
Comparative and Veterinary Specialty Section*
Regulatory and Safety Evaluation Specialty Section

Safety Pharmacology evaluations for human pharmaceuticals are dramatically redefined following implementation of International Conference on Harmonization Guidances S7A (2000), and finalization of S7B (anticipate in 2003). Those guidelines mandate evaluations for new drugs for unintended effects on cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous system functions (S7A core battery), renal and electrophysiological aspects of the cardiac repolarization (S7B) in support of phase I (first in man) programs. This introductory course will familiarize participants with rationale and tactics for modern safety pharmacology evaluations for expeditious development of human pharmaceuticals. An international faculty will present strategies for successful implementation of the core battery evaluations, including critical experimental endpoint, criteria for species selection, study design alternatives, dose selection, data analysis and interpretation, Animal Welfare and Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) issues. The Course will be of broad interest to both academic and industrial SOT meeting attendees engaged in pharmaceutical safety assessment and risk management.

  • Safety Pharmacology after ICH S7A & S7B, Alan Bass, Schering Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, NJ.
  • Safety Pharmacology Core Evaluations (1): Cardiovascular/Cardiac Assessment, Peter Siegl, Merck Research Labs, West Point, PA.
  • Safety Pharmacology Core Evaluations (2): Pulmonary/Respiratory Assessment, Dennis J. Murphy, GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA.
  • Safety Pharmacology Core Evaluations (3): Central Nervous System/Neuromuscular Assessment, Silvana Lindgren, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Sodertalje, Sweden.
  • Safety Pharmacology Evaluation: The Renal System, Lewis B. Kinter, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE.

Skin Sensitization and Allergic Contact Dermatitis

PM09 Basic

Chairperson(s): G. Frank Gerberick, Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH and Ian Kimber, Syngenta, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom.

Endorsed by:
Dermal Toxicology Specialty Section*
Immunotoxicology Specialty Section

Skin sensitization resulting in allergic contact dermatitis is a very common occupational and environmental health problem and is without doubt the most common manifestation of an immunotoxic response. As a consequence there is a need to identify and characterize skin sensitization hazards and for accurate risk assessment paradigms. The last decade has witnessed very significant advances in our understanding of the cellular and molecular mechanisms that are associated with, and required for, the induction of skin sensitization and the elicitation of allergic contact dermatitis. In parallel there has been a growing appreciation of the characteristics that confer on chemicals the ability to cause allergic sensitization and the nature of apparent interindividual differences in susceptibility. Such advances have translated into new opportunities for hazard identification, for assessment of relative skin sensitizing potency and for the development of new approaches to risk assessment. This basic continuing education course will describe for a general audience the immunobiology and chemistry of skin sensitization and clinical aspects of allergic contact dermatitis. This will be followed by a description of the methods available for hazard identification and for the determination of potency, approaches to risk assessment and the current global regulatory environment. This course will be of interest to immunotoxicologists, dermatotoxicologists, those involved in the safety assessment of chemicals and regulatory toxicologists. The course is sponsored jointly by the Dermal Toxicity and Immunotoxicology.

  • The Basic Biology and Immunology of Skin Sensitization and Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Ian Kimber, Syngenta, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom.
  • Skin Sensitization: Predictive Tests and Hazard Identification, David A. Basketter, Unilever Research US Inc., Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom.
  • Relative Potency, Exposure and Risk Assessment,
    G. Frank Gerberick, Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH.
  • The Global Regulatory Environment, Denise M. Sailstad, USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Tools for Functional Genomics


PM10 Advanced

Chairperson(s): Hollie I. Swanson, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Endorsed by:
Molecular Biology Specialty Section*

The goal of this course is to discuss cuttingedge tools and techniques that may be used in ascribing hierarchical, functional analyses of gene products following DNA microarray experiments. First, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of pharmacological and molecular tools (i.e., antagonists, dominant negative approaches, siRNA). We will also discuss the means by which the molecular tools may be introduced into the cell or animal model, including the use of retro and adenoviruses. Our second presentation will use data obtained in the laboratory to demonstrate the approaches that are typically used for determining whether the observed changes in mRNA of the gene product of interest occurs at the transcriptional or posttranscriptional levels. The third presentation will focus on use of the chromatin immunoprecipitation (CHIP) assay to demonstrate whether candidate transcription factors are involved in the regulation of the gene product of interest. Finally, our last presentation will introduce a novel approach, chemical genetics, that may be used to either activate or inactivate target gene products in able to discern their functional role(s) either the toxic or diseaserelated events.

  • Overview, Hollie I. Swanson, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
  • Approaches to be Used to Discriminate Between Transcriptional and PostTranscriptional Gene Regulation, E. David Thompson, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
  • Analysis of Gene Regulation Using the Chromatin Immunoprecipitation Assay, Yanan Tian, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
  • Use of Chemical Genetics in Functional Genomics, Kyung Bo Kim, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Computational Biology, Dose & Response

PM11 Advanced

Chairperson(s): Melvin E. Andersen, CIIT Centers for Health Research, Research Triangle Park, NC and Jeffrey W. Fisher, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Endorsed by:
Biological Modeling Specialty Section*

The past 40 years witnessed increasing emphasis on development of computational simulation models, including physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and, on a more limited scale, physiologically based pharmacodynamic (PBPD) models for biological responses. The fidelity of model parameters with actual biological processes has steadily increased in concert with the explosion of basic biological information. Today computational biology and computational toxicology are undergoing rapid evolution to keep pace with the enormous expansion of our biological knowledge base. A variety of new computational tools and new software are available for computation and the breadth of problems accessible to computational analysis in biology has also increased. The insights derived from computational approaches in biology will influence research strategies to develop biologically based doseresponse (BBDR) models in toxicology/pharmacology and undoubtedly form the basis of the next generation of mechanistic approaches for risk and safety assessments. This session consists of 4 talks covering (1) recent progress in PBPK modeling of xenobiotic and endogenous compounds, (2) development of new computational tools to examine cellular signaling networks, (3) modeling approaches for examining relationships between cellular circuitry and cellular function and (4) the possibility that cellular circuits may be regarded as targets for toxic responses. The session is designed to capture the status, current directions and future opportunities of computational biology that are likely to influence toxicological research strategies and risk and safety assessment.

  • Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling, Jeffrey W. Fisher, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
  • The Computational Biology Tool Box—2004, Mark Craven, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
  • Molecular Circuits and Biological Function, David McMillen, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Canada.
  • Biological Switches and Molecular Circuits as Molecular Targets for Toxic Response, Melvin E. Andersen, CIIT Centers for Health Research, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Functional Flow Cytometry: Applications in Toxicology

(AM05 Repeated)

PM12 Advanced

Chairperson(s): Leigh Ann Burns Naas, Pfizer Global Research and Development, San Diego, CA and Nancy I. Kerkvliet, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Endorsed
Immunotoxicology Specialty Section*

Flow cytometry provides a powerful tool for analyzing multiple characteristics of individual cells in a complex mixture of cell types without having to physically separate the cells. Yet, even though each cell is examined individually, the flow cytometer can process thousands of cells within a few seconds, allowing superior sampling of the population as compared to microscopic counting. The myriad of phenotypic and functional characteristics of cells that can be measured by flow cytometry continues to expand with the development of novel fluorescent probes to a variety of cellular components. The field of immunotoxicology has been greatly influenced by the use of flow cytometry with applications ranging from screening for toxic effects on immune cells to elucidating the mechanisms of toxic action on specific subpopulations of cells. However, other areas of toxicology are beginning to recognize the value of flow cytometry for mechanistic investigations as well. To address this growing interest, the intent of this course is to introduce the audience to novel applications of flow cytometry that have been used to assess tissue injury and mechanisms of toxicity at the whole animal, cellular, and biochemical levels. Although the context of many of the examples will emanate from immunotoxicology studies, each speaker will focus less on the immunology and more on the methods used in their studies that are broadly applicable to other areas of toxicology. Examples of methods to be covered include: apoptosis, oxidative stress, membrane integrity and fluidity, cell cycling using carboxyfluorescein (CFSE), and cell signaling.

  • Introduction to Flow Cytometry, Carl D. Bortner, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC.
  • Assessment of MacrophageInduced Tissue Injury in Liver/Lung by Flow Cytometry, Debra Laskin, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
  • In Vivo Assessment of T Cell Activation Using Flow Cytometry, Nancy I. Kerkvliet, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
  • Flow Cytometric Approaches to Understanding Mechanisms of Toxicant Action, Scott W. Burchiel, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

Adrenal Gland: Mechanisms

PM13 Basic

Chairperson(s): Jon C. Cook, Pfizer Global Research & Development, Groton, CT.

Endorsed by:
Carcinogenesis Specialty Section*
Regulatory and Safety Evaluation Specialty Section
Toxicologic & Exploratory Pathology Specialty Section

The adrenal gland is a common target organ in safety assessment studies. Many times adrenal changes are attributed to “stress,” because this organ produces glucocorticoid hormones and catecholamines. However, that simplistic interpretation ignores the complexity of this organ, of which a fuller understanding will facilitate the ability of toxicologists to investigate potential alternative mechanisms of action. For instance, the adrenal gland has a cortex with three defined zones (zona glomerulosa which produces mineralcorticoids; zona fasciculate which produces glucocorticoids; and, zona reticularis which produces sex steroids) and a medulla which contains chromaffin cells which synthesize catecholamines (predominantly epinephrine and norepinephrine). The goal of this continuing education course is to illustrate the various physiological roles of the adrenal gland, to provide several examples of toxicity including carcinogenicity, and to illustrate the tools necessary to investigate mechanisms of adrenal toxicity. The first speaker will review the physiology of the adrenal gland, focusing on the hypothalamicpituitaryadrenal axis that regulates adrenal cortical function and the sympathetic control of adrenal medullary function. In addition, the comparative anatomy of the adrenal gland will be discussed, focusing on the common species used in toxicology studies (mouse, rat, dog, primate). The second and third speakers will build upon the physiology of the adrenal by describing mechanisms for adrenal cortical and medullary toxicity and carcinogenesis. These speakers will highlight mechanisms of toxicity, illustrate methods to assess adrenal toxicity, and discuss human relevance. The last speaker will provide a case study where the mechanism of adrenal cortical tumors induced by a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) was elucidated and how this information was applied in assessing risk to patients.

  • Physiology and Comparative Anatomy of the Adrenal Gland, George L. Foley, Pfizer Global Research & Development, Ann Arbor, MI.
  • Mechanisms of Adrenal Cortical Toxicity and Carcinogenesis, Charles C. Capen, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
  • Mechanisms of Adrenal Medullary Toxicity and Carcinogenesis, Arthur S. Tischler, Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • A Case Study of Adrenal Tumorigenesis in Drug Development: Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM), John D. Obourn, Pfizer Global Research & Development, Groton, CT.
  • An Overview of Stem Cell Technology and Its Potential Applications, Clive N. Svendsen, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.