• David V Gauvin and Zachary J Zimmermann.
• Neurobehavioral Sciences, Charles River Laboratories, Inc., Mattawan, MI, USA. Electronic address: david.gauvin@mpiresearch.com.
• J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2019 May 1; 97: 24-28.

AbstractThere is a general sentiment in the nonclinical safety assessment literature and the proponents of the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), that the "Modified Irwin" and the Functional Observation Battery are distinct and unique assays for the nonclinical assessment of the central nervous system (CNS). We identify and defend the position that the Irwin screen was developed as an FOB and both terms refer to a single, unitary functional assay. In giving credit to one prominent contributor to any one significant discipline of science for a specific assay, orientation, or theory may have an exclusionary influence on the merits of other prominent contributors within the same research arena. Scientific organizations as well as journal and textbook editors have attempted to unify the nomenclature used within a scientific discipline to make the disciplines conform to non-attributional surname nomenclatures. For example, the Salk-Sabin immunization is simply referred to as the polio vaccine. The "Skinner box" is now the "operant chamber" and "Pavlovian conditioning" is now "respondent conditioning". In 1968, Samuel Irwin established an operational method of analysis used for measuring drug effects in purpose bred laboratory animals. We present and defend the view that the behavioral screening assay developed by Irwin is, for all intents and purposes, a functional observational battery (FOB). We take the position that in standardizing nomenclature without "surnames" the FOB is simply the contemporary name for the data collection system in use under the harmonized safety pharmacology guidelines.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…