4.5 Review

Impact of Tobacco Regulation on Animal Research: New Perspectives and Opportunities

期刊

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 1319-1338

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nts162

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01 DA10464, P50 DA031659, R01 DA026444]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in the United States and the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco or Health ratified by over 170 countries render scientific investigations into the abuse liability, harm, and effects of tobacco more critical than ever. A key area to explore relates to the potential regulation of nicotine content in cigarettes. Determining the nicotine content per cigarette below which smokers reliably reduce their consumption of and dependence on cigarettes, an idea proposed almost 20 years ago (Benowitz & Henningfield, 1994), could be a powerful approach to reduce the abuse liability and consequent harm from cigarettes. However, this approach is laden with potentially complex issues. Many of these complications can be studied using animal models, but they require a particular perspective. Herein, we review several challenges for animal researchers interested in nicotine reduction as examples of how this perspective dictates new approaches to animal research. These include defining the threshold nicotine dose for maintaining self-administration, evaluating the differential impact of various implementation strategies, assessing the factors that could interact with nicotine to alter the reinforcement threshold, describing the role of cues in maintaining low dose nicotine self-administration, and examining individual differences in response to nicotine reduction. Researchers who study tobacco using animal models have the opportunity to play a central role in the regulatory science of tobacco and conduct studies that directly inform policy decisions that could impact the lives of millions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据