Home > PJ (current issue) > Reviews | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7438 p169
10 February 2007

Books

This is a comprehensive examination of good laboratory practice

Good laboratory practice: the why and the how’ (2nd edition), by Jurg P. Seiler. Pp xi+436. Price £103.14. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2005. ISBN 3 54025 348 3


In this book, the author initially rehearses philosophical concepts and attributes of good laboratory practice. These are all useful in the general quality of laboratory output, although some may not be relevant in qualifying for good laboratory practice recognition. This second edition reveals the origin of the 2004 guidelines by the EU Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on sample contamination.

The “four pillars” of GLP are totally committed management, independent internal assurance of analytical processes, absolute control for the trial’s study director and compliance with national monitoring. There is a salutary example of the positive value of an audit trail in satisfactorily resolving an otherwise trial-threatening aberrant observation. One minor, but persistent, irritation is the frequent use of the phrase “precision and reproducibility” without apparently recognising that, in international statistical usage, the former subsumes the latter.

The second part of the book provides comprehensive guidance and working details: definitions, responsibilities, facilities, standard operating procedures, reporting and archiving. The final two parts of the book address implementation, with helpful examples, and how compliance may be maintained.

This book has relatively few charts, and no graphics or illustrations to lighten the text. The literary style may strike some readers as wordy, didactic even, but it repays closer study.

The book delivers a comprehensive examination of the critically important regimen of GLP. For laboratory managers it is a “must” for initiating or enhancing laboratory contribution to clinical and environmental studies.

This book is not, and does not intend to be, a vade mecum for laboratory accreditation and deals neither with proficiency testing nor analytical quality assurance. Nevertheless, it does distinguish those equally important areas and contrasts them with the protocol and procedures required for national GLP compliance.


Geoffrey Phillips (a pharmaceutical consultant, honorary secretary of the Joint Pharmaceutical Analysis Group and a freelance writer)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal