Talk:Animal testing

• Archive 1: 26th May 2004 - 22 Oct 2005
• Archive 2: 5th Nov 2005 - 4th Dec 2005
• Archive 3: 14th Dec 2005 - 3rd Jan 2006

Read through

I have just finished a complete read through and the following are what jumped out at me (It is quite a long list):

Intro

• The following is repeated later in the "Number of Animals Used" section and, IMO, should be removed (as the article is far too long already): 'mostly inside universities, medical schools, pharamceutical companies, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry"
• The sentence after that "Testing is also carried out..." should be moved to join the section regarding the institutions in the "Number of Animals Used" section.
• After the list of research types, the paragraph contains "Examples of developments that used animal research..." There should be a counter agrument at least referenced for the penicillin one - as this, according to various places was held back by animal tests. eg [1]

Our debate appears to have disappeared, however i generally agree the counter argument is needed. My only concern is that predictive revisionism on either side is invalid. So just as pros often claim that any breakthrough would not have been made without animals (we can never know, as animals were used), antis try to claim that the breakthroughs would have happened despite animal testing (again, we can never know as animals were used). Thats why i'd be happier saying that whether animals were essential or required in these studies are in question, rather than any breakthrough would have happened/ not happened with or without them. Anything else is simply speculation, as the source acknowledges with their caveat, '...as was almost the case with penicillin." (my bold). Rockpocket 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The "FBR States on their website..." paragraph needs re-writing to put it into context as it seems detatched at the moment.
• The paragraph starting "The moral basis" should really be moved to the controversy section and the animal-rights opposition to this expanded. As it stands it makes the intro one sided and too long.

Terminology

Seems fine

Regulation

• There is a sentence "Rats, mice, and birds are not protected under the Act." which seems to have been squashed in. It needs expanding/moving from its current position as it does not really fit in that paragraph.
• "Inspections are carried out only where there is reason to suspect a violation". Similar to the sentence above - it seems out of place. It needs expanding/tying in with the rest of the paragraph
• Suggest that the 'Europe' section be split into subsections for UK and France - with the general europe staying as it is (as an 'intro').
• The final sentence of the paragraph regarding France needs a major re-word. It is quite confusing as it stands.

Number of animals used

• The final sentence of paragraph 1 seems a bit 'tag on'. It should be moved to an earlier place in the paragraph and used after the overall figures are stated (eg. "Accurate global figures for animal testing are hard to obtain. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that 100 million animals are experimented on around the world every year, 10–11 million of them in the European Union and 1,101,958 in the United States in 2004, whilst the Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that "[e]stimates of the total number of animals used annually in research around the world are difficult to obtain and range from between 50 to 100 million animals", bearing in mind that their numbers do not include those animals bred for research and killed as surplus, or used for breeding purposes."

I agree that this section needs a rewrite. I have just updated the numbers section with UK 2004 figures taken directly from the Home Office publication, which is referenced. In doing so, I added two big categories - breeding and applied studies - which for some reason had been omitted from the previous set of figures. If anyone is doing deletions from this section: I would suggest deleting the figure for psychological stress, which is included for no apparent reason, and the phrase about the reason for use of beagles, which is not referenced and may not be true. I added that they are purpose-bred, which is more of a reason for their use than the fact that they are friendly and gentle. Ermintrude 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim asked why I changed "[e]stimate ..." to "estimate ..." in the paragraph preceding the numbers edits. Sorry, I spotted this, it looked very odd, and I naturally thought it was an error - I didn't realise the square brackets in [e]stimate had any significance. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Ermintrude 21:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It means the first word in the quote was the first word in the original sentence i.e. was originally capitalized. Anything in square brackets indicates an editorial addition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the normal convention to put editorial additions in square brackets. However, the letter e is not an addition. Why not just capitalise it here? Or is this a Wikipedia convention? Ermintrude 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a Wikipedia convention. It is how it is done. The upper-case E was changed to a local-case e, and this is noted by means of square brackets, to signify an editorial change: in this case that a clause that was the beginning of a sentence is being used as a clause within a sentence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen brackets used thus to capitalise a word, and I really don't think it matters that much, except that because the line breaks after [e] it looks odd. BTW, did you really mean local-case? Ermintrude 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Species Used

• Each of the first 4 sentences need references.
• The Oxford uni stuff needs a check over - I am sure that they have stated that it will contain labs also.
• The statements regarding new breeding colonies need references.
• The final sentence needs a reason for the dogs being purpose bred (a starting point is contol).

Types of Experiments

Toxicology tests

• The image seems very staged to me. But that might be just me being POV.

It is staged, as any technician would be asked permission before a picture was taken! Nevertheless, it is typical of a beagle pen in a UK facility and i have seen many technicians playing with the animals in this manner. Thus i thinks its fairly representative. Rockpocket 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The first paragraph needs a reference.
• The first part of the second paragraph needs a reference (starting "The most stringent tests" and ending "and reproductive problems".

I'd suggest removing this paragraph as its repeated, with references, under 'Drug testing'. Infact this whole section is a bit of a mishmash, it might be better to focus this part on safety testing of coumpounds only and leave the references to drugs for that section, as the legislation is different. Rockpocket 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• The final sentence of the second paragraph needs a reference.

I'd like to include the legislation here, it its important to make clear that these processes are obliged under law. Rockpocket 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific toxicology tests

• "The oral LD50 is still widely used in the US" - needs a reference.

Drug Testing

• The term "tragedy" should be removed as it is highly emotive language.

Fair point, i'll change it. I also intend to add short sections on types of tests used in basic and applied research. I feel there is a bias towards info on toxicology testing (perhaps because that is the most emotive use) which is not consistent with the number of animals used in practice. A rar greater number of animals are used for pure and applied research, for balance some example of these types of procedures should be illustrated. Rockpocket 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Advocates of animal testing

• Points 4 and 5 need references

Opponents of animal testing

• Points 1, 2, and 4 need references
• In point 5,1 the 2 sentences each need references
• The final point needs a reference - possibly [2]

Abuse

Seems fine

ANIMAL TESTING IS WRONG AND IS ABUSE -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.50.159 (talk • contribs)

Cosmetic Testing on animals

• The sentence "Some cosmetics companies claim that their products are not tested on animals, despite using one or more of the aformentioned practices" needs a reference.
• The next 2 paragraphs need references.
• Skipping the next paragraph, the next one needs a reference.
• The final paragraph needs a reference

Alternatives to animal testing

• The opening sentence is mis-representative - it states that all animal rights people believe that animal tests are ok where necessary. It is likely just a grammatical error.
• The paragraph "In the United States....many research institutions comply voluntarily" needs a reference for the last sentence.
• Skipping the next paragraph, each of the points in the next paragraph need a reference
• The computer simulations mentioned also need to mention data from clinical trials/testing on humans.

Reading this again, the last few sentences are vague to the level of being incorrect. "[cultured] hepatocytes... can function almost 50% as well as in vivo hepatocytes" is meaningless, as unless they were transplanted into animals its impossible to compare. It the very least it should be reworded and the parameters for function should be included along with a reference, or else it should be removed.

Myocardial cells don't technically 'beat', the whole heart does with the 'beating' a result of the pumping of blood. Hearts that pump blood are yet to be cultured (Catherine Zandonella, Nature 421, 884 - 886 (2003)). Instead cardiac muscle cells in culture retain the ability to contract under induction (Tseng CE et al, Pediatr Res. 1999 Feb;45(2):260-9: "...cells were observed to beat at rates varying between 25-75 beats per minute (bpm) after the addition of 1.8 mM CaCl2", my bold). I assume thats what the contributor means. I'm not too bothered about using the word 'beat' instead of contract as its widely used, but it is important to state that they require chemical induction, unlike hearts in vivo, of course, which go all by themselves. I can also find no published account of human myocytes contracting in culture without the use of animal products in the media... hardly a good example of an animal free alternative.

The keratinocyte statement, like hepatocytes, is without basis. How does one determine if a cell is functioning at 80% capacity of another unless they measured in the same environment? What is the 'capacity' of a cell? I presume the contributor is referring to 80% of gene expression, respiration or energy production levels, but without a citation its impossible to know. I'm not adverse to having examples of how culture techniques can be used as an alternative to animals - there are plenty of good ones - but these are not them. Instead they appear to be unsubstantiated facts about certain cell types, talked up to make them sound as functionally equivilant to their organs of origin. If no-one can come up with justification for these statements i suggest we scratch them and i'll put together some examples with citations. Rockpocket 00:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that any one person should sort this lot out, more that it needs doing generally. -localzuk 13:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Those suggestions seem valid, localzuk, with the caveats i have mentioned in the text. I'll try and dig out some references that are missing. Rockpocket 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These suggestions are mostly excellent I think, as it had got into a bit of a mess. However, I hesitate to edit anything as my edits do not seem to be welcome. Ermintrude 21:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ermintrude, i think your input would be welcomed, just be wary of removing anything major without explaining here first and allowing the community a comeback. I've found additions are most welcome, however, if explained and referenced. Rockpocket 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It would help a lot if Ermintrude would refrain from deleting anything at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

I added another example to the abuse section, a well-known one, that of Britches, the baby macaque whose eyes were sewn shut. I'm also considering adding one other well-known case called the "well of despair", but it's an older example, perhaps too old, so I want to read up about it first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats an interesting example. I've two queries though. Firstly, is there a citation for the origin of the name 'Britches'? It is unusual, indeed considered bad practice, for researchers to name animals undergoing tests. I would be surprised if that was the case as claimed here, but stand corrected if you have an independent source. If not, i'd suggest its more likely the animal was named by its liberators and thus the origin of the name should be queried. Secondly, i wonder is this technically an example of abuse? It certainly seems unpleasant and unwarranted, but if the experiment was correctly licenced and carried out within the terms of that license, then it was lawful and therefore should not be termed 'abuse' (irrespective of the public distaste it provoked and the result of that). Is there any citations on the legality of the experiment? If not, it should at least be made clear that the abuse is alleged in this example. Rockpocket 06:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the name, though it's simply a question of confirming who gave the name, not that it would be legitimate in some way if named by researchers, but not legitimate if named by the activists. ;-) As for the abuse section, also a good point and I considered renaming it, because none of the examples given were considered abusive by the researchers or the companies involved, except the beating of the beagles which HLS distanced itself from publicly, though apparently not internally. Most people not involved in animal research would consider these examples of abuse, however, rather than simple use. So perhaps a change of header should be considered to reflect some middle position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be hard to get any independant information regarding Britches simply due to the nature of its release. The only people who have information are the original researchers and the liberators. I doubt either are going to have provided a source. The media will be of no use as their information will match that of the liberators (as they are the reason that it was picked up by the media in the first place). As it is in another article as "named by researchers" and then referenced to a book, I think it is acceptable to leave it at that - unless someone can disprove it.

Thats one of my concerns about 'Britches', the only source of information was from the ALF which is only as reputable as the alternative view expressed by the University. Every bit of information i can find on the subject is expressed in the same phrases, which i assume are paraphrased from the book you mention.... which was written by the President of the ALF! It is interesting that in all my personal experience i have never once seen a research animal given a 'name' other than an identifier code, yet browsing the ALF website i find numerous animals with names supposedly given by researchers. Whats the chances of that? Its minor point when compared to the real issue of the alleged abuse i suppose, but is indicitive of how small inaccuracies can be picked up and propogated. Rockpocket 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, the ALF can't be considered as not a citable source regarding an ALF raid, because they are the only source, and in many cases, particularly those picked up by PETA, they film and document the raids extensively; and in the case of Britches, they also removed a lot of research papers, and had a vet onhand to examine the animal immediately and to write a report. We can't trust researchers as sources if we are not prepared to trust activist organizations. All we can do is say "this side says X; the other side says Y." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, Slim. That was kind of my point, to paraphrase, "We can't trust activist organizations as sources if we are not prepared to trust researchers."! As the name does not appear to be publically contested by Riverside, we should take the word of the source that is available: the ALF. The point was more one that my experience would suggest to me that they are named post liberation, but i don't have a citation to back that up, so i'm not going to push it. Rockpocket 18:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree about the definition of abuse though - legally, it was an acceptable experiment from what I've read.-localzuk 09:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think by simply inserting "alleged" infront of the word 'abuse' on the first line covers that. A few of the examples are probably technically not abuse. I have no problems with the examples that have documented evidence of behaviour that breaches the law (HLS, Covance), but the Cambridge example clearly states that the Home Office granted a license for such experiments, thus that also cannot be termed abuse. I'm not sure of the legal status of the Columbia one. It might be better to lable the whole section 'alleged abuse' or 'Abuse and questionable experiments' or else break up into subsections, as i think most reasonable people would agree there were widespead questions over the validity of all those examples. Rockpocket 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Or "Controversial examples"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no real preference on wording, i'd defer to your choice. Rockpocket 18:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is interesting, but it needs a reliable source. I just had a quick skim through Deborah Blum's book The Monkey Wars and I can't find mention of it there. It appears that this was a case of abuse by the animal rights liberators: I wonder if there are other similar cases?

How can Britches be called a "case of abuse by the animal rights liberators"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Well of Despair is one of Harry Harlow's shocking maternal deprivation experiments from around 1960, which are well-documented in a book called Love at Goon Park.

On a slightly different tack, I was concerned that the abuse section was already too long, and thus distorts the piece. In the UK, there are around 20-30 breaches of the animal research controls every year and most of these are minor, very few compromise animal welfare, see for instance [3]. Seven UK cases arising from infiltrations since 1975 are documented by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report downloadable from [4] see pages 24/25, and up to four of these - I would say two - could be regarded by an independent person as involving 'abuse'. Sure, there are others in other countries, but given that 50-100 million experiments are conducted every year around the world, abuse is relatively rare. Ermintrude 10:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have missed a few points there Ermintrude. The point is that with Britches there will not likely be any sources other than the liberators themselves. Can I just query your statement t appears that this was a case of abuse by the animal rights liberators: I wonder if there are other similar cases? ? Do you mean to say that the liberators were abusive or that they are the ones saying that Britches was abused?

Regarding the number of breaches - this number is the number reported/discovered. There may well be more - but this statistic cannot be quoted because it would be just speculation. The numbers quoted should be stated as numbers reported as breaches rather than the number of breaches. -localzuk 10:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears from reading Slim's addition that the damage may have been caused by the ALF veterinarian - that was what I meant. I agreee on the number of breaches - I referred to the reported numbers for the purposes of discussion about whether the abuse section was overlong and thus misrepresents the normal conduct of research. I wasn't suggesting that the numbers should be quoted in the article, although I would not object (except on length!) if someone wants to add them. Ermintrude 10:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this was simply the claim made by the researchers. They argued that their thick stitches could not have caused the holes in the monkey's skin. What must have caused the holes was the ALF vet's examination. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In Slim's defense, he does make clear the the allegations of abuse are disputed and counter claims were made. It could be used as an example of alleged abuse by liberators, but i'm not sure if that is appropriate for this article. I am drafting an article on "animal rights terrorism" or the like, which it may suit. You'd be very welcome to contribute to that. I'm going to insert "alleged" into this section (and risk the wrath of Slim!), as i think the consensus is that it is not proven to be a case of abuse. As for the numbers quoted, a brief insertion in the 'abuse' intro to put the examples in context might be a good idea. Rockpocket 18:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I'm a she. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah! The perfect example of a white, male assumption bias! My apologies. ;-) Rockpocket 18:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ermintrude, please don't change American to British spelling, or vice versa, unless it's part of a name. I haven't looked to see which is more common on the page, but whichever it is, the rest should be consistent with it, names apart (you were right about RDS). But please don't label these differences "errors." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't. License is the US spelling for both verb and noun, British spelling is licence for noun, license for verb. So changing licencee to licensee is both correcting the British spelling error and conforming to US spelling (ie licensee is always spelt thus). I agree you should try to standardise on US or British spelling throughout - at present it is inconsistent. In future please check your facts before laying down the law. Ermintrude 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar isn't my strong point so i'll abstain on this one! Is there a wiki convention on Rest of the world v US spelling or is consistency within an article the only direction? Rockpocket 20:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The house style is to have spelling consistent with the topic if the topic itself suggests one e.g. George W. Bush in American English, Paul Martin in Canadian English, Tony Blair in British English etc. If the topic doesn't suggest a style, we rely on whatever the first major contributor used. Where that's unclear (e.g. where it's unclear who counts as the first major contributor), then it's whichever usage is most common on the page; and if that's also unclear, we can probably just agree amongst ourselves. However, I'd say editing to change spellings can probably be left until we get all the other issues sorted out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point, Slim. The edit was a correction of a misspelling I happened to spot. Nothing to do with US or British spelling. You chose to criticise me and start this discussion. Why, if you are now saying it's unimportant? Ermintrude 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Spiny, please stop "correcting" that quote. The intro is already too long and you're just introducing more words for no reason. Adding the relief of suffering "of humans and animals" (or whatever it says) is unnecessary, because it already talks about human and veterinary medicine. There is no need to reproduce a long quote word for word, and there is no reason to do so in this case. I inserted the quote to extract the moral point from it, and the words you keep adding make no difference to the moral point. In any event, the whole thing will have to be shortened further when the anti-testing paragraph is added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, you keep reverting back the appalling "mired in controversy" phrase that I will absolutely not accept. It is bad writing and it will not stand. You also keep removing the important qualification about the groups who question the value of animal experimentation being opposed to animal experimentation. Without the qualification it is simply POV and so I'll just remove it entirely until we get this sorted. --SpinyNorman 01:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if as suggested we want to have the discussion here to avoid a revert war, let me place on record that I agree with both these points, Spiny. And they don't lengthen the intro unduly. 217.206.196.219 10:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit strange is it not that an anon ip with obvious pov bias (from user contributions) on this article should suddenly pop-up with the sole purpose of agreeing with the views of someone who will not compromise and discuss the issues (which are also being argued against as being POV)?-localzuk 10:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not suddenly 'popped up' and have contributed other comnments. As you will see, I have an extensive constructive critique on the new alternatives text (which I also think is an improvement), which I am about to post here. It is strange, and worrying for npov, that anyone with what you perceive as a pov bias (ie doesn't agree with the anti testing pov) is immmediately pounced on. 217.206.196.219 11:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I based my comment on your contributions Special:Contributions/217.206.196.219 which all seem to be very similar to those made by Spiny - and a lot are POV. I did not pounce, instead I researched your behaviour and found it to be strikingly similar to Spiney's work.-localzuk 11:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, it isn't bad writing, and to be honest, you're not in a position to judge. But I wouldnt argue if that were the only point. Look at the mess you've made by moving the paragraph. You're just POV pushing and moving things around for no good reason. I keep telling you: the intro is about to be rewritten anyway to include an anti-testing paragraph.

So re-write it then and try to leave out the bad writing. And yes, I am in a position to judge. I have been writing professionally in one field or another for more than two decades. I know bad writing when I see it. An encyclopedia is no place for labored, juvenile metaphor. I've fired people for writing that wasn't as bad as that. --SpinyNorman 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, don't make me go look for the diffs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve this article for some time. This was the state of the page before I made an edit to it. My intention in October/November, as can be seen by my editing of the article and talk page, was finally to get it into good shape; then the anon IP POV pushers arrived, including I-forget-the-name who now has a user account and is pretending to be a different person, and I lost any desire to work on it, and this is what happens when there's POV pushing and revert wars: the consequence is usually deterioration, not improvement. Improvement requires intelligent cooperation, with the stress on intelligent: people willing to do research, who understand how to write, how to find sources, use them, how to cite them. You can't just turn up at a page on a topic you have no knowledge of and do some quick cutting and pasting, which is what you do on all the animal rights-related pages. Or as the anon IPs do, they know a little about it but have a very narrow point of view, so that whatever has been their personal experience is universalized and turned into a law of nature. It is very dispiriting.

Ah, so this is your idea of cooperation and improvement. POV pushing and insulting people who disagree with you? --SpinyNorman 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an important subject, and there are lots of good sources out there, so this has the potential to be a very good article. I wish you would allow people who genuinely want to improve it to do so. Rockpocket, Localzuk, and I could work well together on this, and I was very pleased to see them arrive here, because I think we could cooperate well, and we have different POVs, so we could really get this page to the stage where Wikipedia could be proud of it, but that won't happen so long as all this nonsense continues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More insults and emotional posturing? If this is the best you can do, then perhaps you should stop to examine your irrational reaction to the changes I'm making. Generally when people react to someone else's view with hostility, it is because their prejudices are being challenged in a way they are unable to respond to rationally. --SpinyNorman 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you reproduce your proposed changes here, Spiny, then we can all attack them... joke;-)... we can all debate and come to a consensus which version is better on a point by point basis. Surely that has got to beat the edit/revert/edit/reverting over the last few hours? Rockpocket 08:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rockpocket/Slim - please don't just alter things as they are likely to cause a negative response and be reverted. Please post what you want to do here before doing it so we can all have a look and try and come to some consensus. I do agree that the term 'mired in controversy' is a little on the, shall we say, emotion provoking side. Maybe something list emotive would be better suited?-localzuk 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll make good faith changes as I see fit, thank you very much. None of the changes I've made have been vandalistic in nature. If someone disagrees with them, they can edit them further and justify their edits as I justify mine. If I agree with the edits, they will stand, if not, I'll edit them further. That's how this process works. --SpinyNorman 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, your comment does not bode well with the ideals of Wikipedia - this page has shown that there is strong opposition to your posts and as such it is recommended through various policies on WP to discuss on the talk page before making the changes. Wikipedia works on Consensus and if you can't work this way then your posts will likely go on being reverted without comment - as this wouldn't be necessary. Please take others views into count and follow the guidelines else we will never have a good, balanced, npov article.-localzuk 09:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you need to reacquaint yourself with the "ideals of Wikipedia". Specifically, I direct you to the note at the bottom of every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." As to your claim that I don't consider the views of others. I will simply say that you're wrong. I consider those with opposing views when I write. If someone has a better idea and can defend that idea on its merits, I will accept it. That is enough - and more than many people here can claim. Spare me this "consensus" rubbish though. It is a thinly-diguised emotional argument - an appeal to the mob mentality. It has no place in factual reporting. The mob can be wrong, while one person can be right. Remember, the consensus used to hold that the Earth was 6000 years old, flat and the centre of the universe. Let's have less consensus and more fact. You think I'm being unreasonable? I should remind you what George Bernard Shaw said about such folk... "A reasonable person adapts themselves to the world. The unreasonable person will persist in trying to adapt the world to themselves. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable people." - --SpinyNorman 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. you misused the word "bode". You should have used something like "fit". Bode is a synonym of words like "augur"; it describes a prediction based on intangibles like omens. If something "bodes well", it suggests that conditions are favorable for a positive outcome. My comment (from your point of view) doesn't "bode" anything. It either fits in with your preconceptions or it doesn't. There's no element of prediction or forecasting based on intangibles here. --SpinyNorman 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for correcting me on my use of words. Second, did you read the page that I linked to? It is an official policy of wp and must be followed. This is a controversial page and to reduce the amount of reverts - which are bad - it is official policy to have to discuss things on the talk page. I do think you are being unreasonable. I am not being 'emotional' - I am trying to reduce the amount of crap we have to go through on this article due to inconsiderate users not discussing things beforehand. As I stated before, if you do not discuss things on this page, they will likely be reverted and your info will never be presented as you aren't taking into account the community's views on the issue. -localzuk 09:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Spiny, please read our content policies. You're defending behavior that has no place here. You spent over a week reverting against four editors at Vivisection to prevent us from saying that the word is now used to refer generally to animal testing, deleting as sources the Encyclopaedia Britannica and a professor of pathology, [5] arguing against an editor with relevant academic and professional qualifications, and producing as your source www.askoxford.com, an online mini version of the OED, which you knew was contradicted by larger OED editions. Even when we compromised with you about the sentence, you still deleted the sources [6] for the simple reason that you did not like what they said. That's not how the policies tell us to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, when i first got here i thought Slim (particularly) was being overly authoritarian, but i've rapidly come to realise why she asks that editors do not dive straight in this article and instead engage on this page first - and i now fully support this policy. Spiny, while your sentiments are admirable (in a romantic sort of way), the reality is that your attitude towards editing on this article is simply going to result in your input being comletely marginalised. I happen to think you have a point in some of your edits, but by refusing to acknowledge that 'consensus' (or at least majority consensus) is the only way improvement will happen in practise - you are wasting your time and everyone elses. We are simply asking that your edits be mentioned here with justification before editing the article itself - hardly an infringment of your Wikipedian liberties. If, after discussion, you cannot convince a majority of editors that you are correct and the mob is wrong - you can edit with impunity, but guess what will happen? Alternatively, if you can get support, your edits will most likely stand. So, it doesn't take a genius to work out which method is most lilkely to improve the article. It may not be a perfect system, but in the moral quagmire that is animal testing, its seems most prudent. Rockpocket 01:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives Section

I've spent (far too long) tonight reworking this section due to my concerns posted under Localzuks point by point analysis. Its not perfect by any means, but i hope its more balanced, its certainly sourced better, and i've tried to cover the different takes on the 3Rs and the genuine examples of good alternatives. Please feel free to change it if you can improve or if any POV has sneaked in, but i'd appreciate a chance to respond here before largescale deletions. Its probably too long, but i'm open to pruning at a later date. Slim, i'm not expert on the infighting between the antis with regards to the 3Rs (which seems to be remarkably bitter from my brief research), do you think one sentence covers their range of views sufficiently? Rockpocket 08:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Rockpocket, it's excellent, and yes, I think you've summed up the antis' position just fine. The only thing I'll point out is that the house style when using embedded links is not to add a description but to use a numbered link only, so diabetes [7] instead of diabetes. The reason is twofold: first to retain the numbers to the reader can remember the reference she needs was link #4, and secondly, to signal so the reader that they're being taken offsite and not being referred to a WP page like diabetes. But that's a small point; it's otherwise very good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rock, I think this is a great improvement. I would however like to suggest some tweaks, which I think will improve the balance further. Here is my constructive criticism, with some sources. I have used bold to indicate where existing text should be changed, imv.

Current text:

Most scientists and governments say they agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary.

Suggested addition:

They also say that alternatives are the norm, animals being used in an estimated 10% of all biomedical studies [8].

Current text:

Reduce: The minimum number of animals to complete the study effectively must be used.

Replace: The alternatives to animal testing that have been proposed so far must be explored and developed.

Refine: The procedures performed on animals should cause the least amount of harm possible while still maximizing their efficacy so that they will not need to be repeated.

Comment:

I don’t think these definitions are quite right or widely accepted.

Suggest replace with: see [9]

Reduction refers to methods which enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.

Replacement refers to the use of non-animal methods (such as computer modelling, in vitro cell cultures, and human volunteers) instead of animals to achieve a scientific aim.

Refinement refers to methods which alleviate or minimise potential pain, suffering or distress, and which enhance animal welfare, for those animals which still have to be used.

Current:

It is further claimed these studies are funded with trivial amounts of money …

Comment:

We should not use "claimed", and there is another view which needs to be stated. However, others will do a better job of Wikifying than me.

Suggested:

It is further stated these studies are funded with trivial amounts of money, but this view is contested by the pharmaceutical industry, which says that it spends millions each year on 3Rs development [10] (pdf - Alternatives to the use of animals in medicines research).

Current:

The two major, widely accepted alternatives to animal testing under development are computer simulations and in vitro cell culture techniques. However, some claim they are not true alternatives since computer simulations use data from prior animal experiments and cultured cells often require animal derived products, such as serum. Examples of computer simulations available include models of diabetes, asthma, and drug absorption, though pharmaceutical advances made using these programs are currently still required to be verified in animal tests before licensing.

Comment:

This overplays the role of these ‘alternatives’ and suggests that with a little development they could be wholesale replacements. Not sure what the last sentence means, so have tried to rewrite so that it says what I think it means.

Suggested:

The two major, widely accepted replacement or reduction alternatives to animal testing under development are computer simulations and in vitro cell culture techniques. However, some say they are not true alternatives since computer simulations use data from prior animal experiments and cultured cells often require animal derived products, such as serum. Others say that they cannot replace animals completely as they are unlikely to ever provide enough information about the complex interactions of living systems. Examples of computer simulations available include models of diabetes, asthma, and drug absorption, though potential new medicines identified using these techniques are currently still required to be verified in animal tests before licensing.

Current:

According to the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, advances in in vitro toxicology research has "reduced in vivo (whole animal) testing by as much as 90% for certain endpoints" [87]. Cultured cells have also been developed to create monoclonal antibodies, prior to this production required amimals to undergo a procedure likely to cause pain and distress [88]. Scientists generally support the use of in vitro techniques, though often not exclusively as many claim cultured cells lack the complexity of a living multicellular system. [89]. Critics, in contrast, note "in vitro" is not synonymous with either "nonanimal" or "vegan" [90].

Comment:

Suggest leave in the monoclonal antibody example but delete the rest as I think these points are now covered in current or suggested text above.

List of institutes:

Suggest deleting FBR, which I don’t believe plays this role, and adding FRAME (www.frame.org.uk) and NC3Rs (www.nc3rs.org.uk). There are others in Europe that could be added.

Am willing to make these changes if they are acceptable. What do you think? 217.206.196.219 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the editorial consideration, anon. I have no major problems with any of those suggestions. Most, the reworking of the 3Rs definition especially, i think are very good. One i'm less sure about ("They also say that alternatives are the norm, animals being used in an estimated 10% of all biomedical studies"). I think that might be slightly misleading, as i think the point of 'alternatives' in this section is the use of a technique that doesn't use animals used to replace/refine/reduce the number of animals used. All of the other 90% of studies, from your quote, would not use alternatives by this definition as many biomedical techniqes are inherently animal free by their nature (eg, PCR, epidemiology, bioinformatics). So some these are strictly additional techniques as opposed to alternatives. Nevertheless, i see what point you are trying to make and perhaps that stat should be used elsewhere to establish the reality of animal use in biomedical research overall. Infact, i may incorporate it into the section i am planning to write on types of animal experiments used in pure and applied research (as oppose to toxicology, which is already well covered). Other than that though, i say go for it, though perhaps you should wait for other comments before going ahead. Thanks, Slim, for the heads up on house style, if no one else has, i'll change those links. Rockpocket 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to someone from the Research Defence Society, a lobby group, editing this page to make it sound like one of their promotional pamphlets in support of biomedical research, particularly as he has already used some sentences from RDS on another page, word for word, without putting them in quotation marks. For example, why would it be relevant to say (even if true) that only ten per cent of biomedical studies involve animals? This page is about animal testing, not about biomedical research per se i.e. this page is about that ten per cent. And anyway, how would such a percentage be measured, and which countries is it meant to apply to? I would prefer to see non-RDS, non-lobby group sources for every edit he makes, and please bear in mind that we are supposed to be here as Wikipedians, so if you're pro-testing, that involves also writing some anti-testing material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The suggested edits are based on straightforward, neutral, factual information. No RDS material, quotes or sources have been used. Thank you Rockpocket for your constructive comments, which I accept. The 10% sentence that I proposed could have been worded better, but that would have entailed examining the different interpretations of the word 'alternative' by different people. There isn't enough room, and this probably isn't the right place to do it anyway. So as a compromise I suggest that this sentence is deleted (ie not added to the existing article text).

Any further concerns can be addressed here by suggesting edits for discussion. Similarly, if it is felt that more sources are needed, please say where and I can add them. 217.206.196.218 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the 3Rs are per your suggestion sometime today. I'll also add FRAME etc. These, i'm assuming, are not in contention. I think it is fair enough to state the pharmacuetical industry's defense to the "trivial funding" criticism. In terms of your suggestion that: "This overplays the role of these ‘alternatives’ and suggests that with a little development they could be wholesale replacements". I'm not sure of that is a fair criticism. In some cases a development could (and have!) led to extensive replacement (the monoclonal antibody is a good example, as was the use of culture in cosmetic toxicology testing). Nevertheless, i see no reason that the widespead feeling of the science community (that, taken as a whole, these can complement and reduce, but never completely replace) should not be mentioned. As you are willing to withdraw the 10% comment, i think that pretty much covers it and, in your defense, those suggestions hardly sound like a promotional pamphlet to me. Slim, i can understand you being wary of potential lobbyists, but for all we know someone else here could work for BUAV, so its unfair to discriminate based on the source of someones's IP! I personally think having intelligent people from both camps here woulds be helpful for us to record an accurate line from both sides straight from the horse's mouth. If you - or anyone else - has specific concerns with any of anon's suggested three or four edits, then lets hear them and we can work them out, otherwise i'll re-edit soon and then move on to looking at another section. Rockpocket 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rock, BUAV is one of the world's oldest and most respected protection agencies, one with no connection to direct action, and indeed they frequently condemn it. The animals they see themselves as defending are of no commercial value to them. The Research Defence Society, on the other hand, is a very new organization set up with the sole intention of defending organizations that make an enormous amount of money out of biomedical research. That's the source of my unease.

Regarding including the pharmaceutical industry's claim that they spend millions on researching alternatives, could we please have a reputable source for that, and mention some figures? The criticism is that they spend a tiny percentage compared to the profits they make, so it'd be good to make the criticism and response as precise as possible, rather than "they're criticized for not spending enough, but they say they spend millions," which doesn't really tell us anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

BUAV may be old, but respected? I don't think so. Your neutral mask is slipping again, Slim. I don't recognise your description of the Research Defence Society, which were set up around the same time as BUAV and I don't think they represent industry particularly. Surely it's easy enough to check out their website before slagging them off? [11] Anyway, I thought the edits were fairly standard NPOV stuff.

What is this if it's not a reputable source for the pharma industry statement .... (copied from above) [12] (pdf - Alternatives to the use of animals in medicines research). I found the pdf okay, just now, the 9th one down the page. Maybe Rock can make a direct link. I do agree that the statement could be more precise - maybe a quote directly from the pdf and an explanation of what ABPI is, although of course that adds to the length. Ermintrude 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea of the history of the RDS or BUAV, but it was only an example. The principle is that we have no idea which unreputable organisations any of us may or may be associated with, and so to discriminate against one person on the basis of their IP is unfair. Personally i think trying to claim a lobby group on one side has more moral authority than one from the other like saying an apple is more of a vegetable than an orange. Irrespective of motivation, a campaigning group's entire purpose of existance is to further their cause. That agenda in itself is enough for a healthy does of distrust in my book. That said, I've had contact with both BUAV and RDS in my time and find both to be rather reasonable - compared to some of the more extreme groups.

I agree with Slim that the actual amount of money spent on alternatives would be better than "millions". So how about this from that pdf: "It is further stated these studies are funded with trivial amounts of money, but this view is contested by the UK pharmaceutical industry, which estimates more than 300 million pounds (out of a total UK R&D budget of 3285 million pounds) is spent on 3R development and implementation annually (ref)" Rockpocket 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not only on the basis of the IP address, but that on another page s/he plagiarized a sentence word-for-word from RDS but didn't attribute it to them, and removed an image of a Draize test. Your sentence about 3R development is good, Rock. Thanks for finding it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, so i've made those changes plus a few other minor textual ones. I think its more concise now, has less quotes for the sake of it and explains the 3Rs better. All in all, its coming along nicely, i'd say. Still, if anyone can think of improvements, just say so. Rockpocket 08:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work everyone. I think this section is really good - it ought to be as this is one area of common ground (well, for most)! I corrected one sp and have two questions and a comment, all rather minor. First, does it comply with the source verification principles agreed last month, in talk above? Then "However, critics say these facilities perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are necessary for human health, and to reassure the public that steps are being taken to find alternatives" doesn't sound grammatical to me. Maybe the word "to" should be deleted, or the words "exist to" should be inserted before perpetuate? Finally, I think there is redundancy later, in "currently still" I suggest deleting "currently".Ermintrude 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good spots, Ermintrude. I don't really know what you mean about source verification - perhaps someone else can comment on that. I agree with your additions to the the 'myth' sentence though. I'd suggest going ahead and doing it, as it certainly clarifies that point. Rockpocket 02:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re SlimVirgin's comment about RDS above. There was no plagiarisation or lack of attribution to RDS on that page. At the start of the sentence the attribution was made to RDS, from the outset. It now has two attributions in a single sentence, which is unnecessary. An explanation for the removal of the picture was given in the edit summary, but since this has now been reverted a fuller explanation is given on the talk page. I suggest that anyone who's interested takes a look at the page [13] and takes part in the discussion there, rather than here. 217.206.196.219 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There's an extensive article in the current Scientific American on the three Rs [14] in case anyone here is interested. Also an editorial (SA Perspectives: Saving Animals & People) [15]. I particularly like the sentiments "Use of animals in testing and in biomedical research continues to be necessary in many instances and is ethically preferable to experimenting on humans or forgoing cures that could save human lives. But for the sake of people and animals alike, the development and acceptance of animal substitutes deserve enthusiastic support." 217.206.196.219 13:52, 10 January

2006 (UTC)

Nobel prize winner Professor Sir Andrew Huxley has a letter in today's Nature [16] journal about toxicological testing and alternatives. I've already added a relevant quote from this into the entry on the Draize test. It would be good to quote the second part of his letter (or some of it) somewhere in the alternatives section or elsewhere in this article, viz "What are the alternatives? The possibilities are either to stop the development of new drugs for human and veterinary use, or to put new drugs on the market without testing them on living animals, or to test new drugs on humans without previous testing on other animals. Few people would be prepared to accept any of these. [paragraph break] To speak of in vitro tests as 'alternatives' to testing on living animals is misleading: both are necessary. It is impossible to imitate in vitro the unimaginable complexity of a human being or indeed of any mammal. In vitro tests on bacterial cultures and tissue cultures are necessary in the early stages of testing the very large numbers of substances that are synthesized in order to produce a single drug for use on humans. These tests eliminate all but a very few of those substances, and only those few are candidates for testing on living animals." I think he puts this view, which reflects that of most of the scientific and medical community, very well. 217.206.196.219 15:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV warning

Someone (Jbamb) removed the neutrality warning { {npov} } yesterday. Can we have it back please? This editor obviously thinks that because some discussion has been archived and some of the non-archived discussion seems more reasonable, that there is no dispute. The entry has improved a lot, but at least half of it is still unbalanced. The second half concentrates on those aspects (which in numerical terms are minor) that the anti-testing lobby use to push their pov - eg primates (0.1%), toxicology testing (15%), cosmetics testing (a tiny part of testing) and abuse (minuscule). Until there is more balance - and I appreciate this is work-in-progress - the warning is needed. 217.206.196.218 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Done that. Although it isn't really that much in dispute - just a few sections really. As I mentioned earlier thinking the article is unbalanced does not mean it is POV.-localzuk 12:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Localzuk. Can you explain again the difference between unbalanced and POV? I'm afraid I don't understand. 217.206.196.219 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

POV is comments such as 'Animal testing is wrong' (which is opinion and unreferenced) whereas unbalanced is just having more info on one side of a topic than the other.-localzuk 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, still not sure there is much difference, only in degree. If the article states 'antivivisection and animal rights groups say animal testing is bad science', with a reference to those groups but without saying what the opposing pov is, is that unbalanced or pov? Both terms indicate lack of neutrality, imv, and the warning says "the neutrality of this article is disputed". 217.206.196.218 13:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Balance is not always possible and is often undesirable. We don't say "On the one hand, Hitler is said to have ordered the deaths of six million Jews, but on the other hand, the Nazis said they weren't fully human anyway." I've used an extreme example to illustrate the point, but the same principle crops up everywhere in more subtle forms. An unbalanced article is not necessarily POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The example you have given anon, would be unbalanced - not POV as it is not someone's POV. This article is never going to be neutral as the 2 sides are so opposed to each other it will not be able to provide a completely balanced article. We can strive to provide an equal amount of information about both sides but this might not cover each sides points. -localzuk 13:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rock, just to go back to a point you mentioned earlier about animals' names, I've taken a look through some books this morning, and quite a few mention names given to animals by researchers, alongside those named by activists. The stories sound quite genuine. The woman ALF activist who rescued Britches was first told the name well before the raid by the person who outlined the plan to her, according to Ingrid Newkirk who has published the story. Bear in mind that many of these raids have inside help, so at least some of the people working with the animals do feel affection for them. And some of the names are not so affectionate. One monkey was famously named "Crap" and had the word tattooed on his forehead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was discussing this issue with a few people yesterday, including vets who spend more time in vivaria than me, and they inform me that infact its not unusual for larger animals to be given unnofficial names by the animal technicians that tend to the animals. These are, of course different from the scientists that actually use the animals for experiments, who will use numbers and/or strain code for official identification and reporting as per the law. Some transgenic animals have strain codes that sound like given names (eg. Goth, Chocolate or Whirler). I have seen some technicians keep certain rats and mice as pets (something they are not supposed to, but do anyway), and i suppose these have names. In this case i'd imagine Britches was the name used by the inside source who, by his/her actions, one would infer felt affection for the animal. Thus prior to the raid, the ALF were referring to it by its name. I'd be very surprised if there was any official documentation from Riverrside with that name on it, though. As you said, since its not contested by anyone but me (!) who gave the name doesn't really matter for our purposes, but interesting as a very effective humanising 'tactic' through the media - Joe Public can empathise with Britches the monkey or Geraldine then kitten much easier than animal GD124/C! Regarding the monkey 'Crap'- another sickening example of illegal abuse that unfairly tars the reputation of everyone involved in legal experimentation. After all we don't judge all doctors by Harold Shipmans actions! But if i ever witnessed something like that, i'd be pressing charges, i hope the person resposible was dealt with appropriately.

Rock, you've worked in vivisection (and I'm not doubting you), but one thing I wonder about is why you don't realize the extent of what you call abuse, which is in fact simply use. The protection/rights groups know they won't be believed, so they film the raids, film what they find, steal documents, steal film the researchers themselves have made of their experiments, and hire experts to analyse the material. Have you watched many of these films? Unfortunately, not much is online, and the very well-known films have to be purchased. But they show material filmed by the researchers and stolen during raids, so this isn't illegal abuse (well, it might be illegal de jure but the laws are not being enforced). Much of it is unconscionable by any standard, which is why the attitude of so many is simply not to believe it (it's only PETA/the ALF/that silly scientist who always backs them up), because the consequences of believing it are too far-reaching (is this what happens so we can carry on smoking, drinking, eating rubbish?), and so cognitive dissonance reduction takes over, and we dismiss the stories as propaganda.

This probably isn't the right place for this debate, but if no one objects, i'm happy to have it. I'm afraid i haven't seen a large amount of the films outside those freely available on the web. (This is primarily because i refuse to commit funds to organisations that commit terroist acts. I had the fortune of being invited to Scotland Yard a few years back to be briefed by a member of their specialist team on animal-rights groups. You may or may not be aware of the paper trail from the donation tins of many 'peaceful' front organisations directly into funding attacks on citizens daring work for institutions that provide banking services for HLS. This isn't my POV, but a result of infiltrations from the British police whom you may choose to believe or disbelieve.) All i can rely on, with regards to the extent of alleged abuse, is my own experience of what i and my trusted colleagues have seen. Now, obviously i could be accused of being a propgandaist and my testimony branded false, but no more so than the anti-activists could and unlike them, i have expressed no ideological agenda either in support or opposition. The simple fact is, Slim, i have been inside perhaps 50-60 vivaria in 4 Western countries over about 12 years, in 5 of which i have had a level of responsibility for animal health and wellbeing. I have never seen an example of intentional abuse (and by that i can only go on the legal sense of the word abuse, as the 'wrongful' sense is clearly subjective and meaningless in such a polarised subject). I have seen animals not treated as they should, but these have all been due to miscommunication or inappropriate training, and are minor and rare compared to the examples you have illustrated. When these crop up, they have always been dealt with seriously and promptly (i'm talking about things like a technician not giving bedding when they should or a scientist using the gas to kill an animal instead of another method thts on their licence). I have also seen experiments that i consider innappropriate, needless or unjustified in my opinion, but they are legal and are licenced, thus my opinion - which is inexpert on the specifics behind any given experiment outside my own expertise - matters not. These cannot be considered abuse in any objective use of the term. And those that think that it is abuse are should direct their ire at lawmakers, not the people working within the framework of the law. I've never seen an experiment that is "unconscionable by any standard" because by working within the law scientists are working to a standard.

So, while i don't doubt it happens and at a rate higher than the examples highlighted by PETA, in my experience, the claims of widespread abuse simply don't add up to me. If you have evidence otherwise, i'd be happy to hear it, but until then i can only go with my own experience intergrated with the empirical evidence presented. I don't expect you to take my word for it (why should you, as i'm not taking yours or ALFs!), but i hope at least you respect why i take the line that i have on this controversial issue. As i've mentioned before, my personal POV is not based on any ideology, simply the facts on the ground as i've seen them from a reasonably informed position. Thats why i believe i can edit this entry without agenda. Rockpocket 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point about the scientists and names: the scientists don't as a rule conduct the experiments. The technicians do, and I wonder whether that's part of the problem: that the scientists may sometimes not fully appreciate what goes on either (though clearly some do).

I'm afraid i have to strongly disagree here. Perhaps its my fault for not making clear what i meant, but animal technicians do not conduct experiments. They are generally educated to a minor level (no offense to any animal techs here!), they are not named under project licences and thus cannot legally carry out specific experimental procedures. Their duties are in cleaning, feeding, enriching, reporting helath problems to the named vet, tagging and breeding. No scientist in their right mind would allow an animal tech to conduct one of their experiments. I think you are referring to research assistants, who are scientists themselves and conduct experiments on behalf of senior members of the labs. These are not the people who typically name animals, instead they are the ones responsible for assigning the codes. Rockpocket 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, the situation seems to be different in the UK. Here, animal technicians do carry out minor procedures such as dosing, blood sampling etc as well as animal husbandry and health checks. However, they can only do this if they have undertaken training, passed exams and obtained a personal licence that details the procedures they are qualified to carry out. Because they are experts in animal welfare, are familar with the animals and handle them frequently, this is arguably better for the animals than allowing the scientists to do such procedures. On naming animals, in my experience visiting many animal houses, the larger animals are all named by their carers, who do have genuine affection for them. In fact, I can't imagine any of the many animal technicians I have met doing anything to harm the animals in their care. Yes, as in any walk of life there are a few bad apples, and there have been a few instances of abuse, but I don't believe these should be used to tar the entire sector.217.206.196.218 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, anon. I guess we are talking about different grades of animal technician between the US and UK. But the principle is the same, lab animals are not officially 'named' by scientists in either country, but in both the primary care technicians often give them their own unofficial names. Rockpocket 17:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've often wanted to write this page in two sections: in one, the very best we can find in support of animal testing, including images, examples, stories from scientists; and in the other, the very worst we can find against it. At the moment, we're trying to steal a balanced middle course, carefully weighing each sentence, and the result is mediocrity, and reverting over every change in nuance. Maybe if the pros could write whatever they wanted in their half, and the antis whatever they wanted in theirs, the page would have some life breathed into it. Part of my thinking is that, if we can get some real cooperation going here, we might have a featured article on our hands (gets to go on the front page), though it's hard work. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims of abuse are common, but they are rarely substantiated. Maybe Slim and other antis here believe that animal testing itself constitutes abuse. Because of such views I agree that it's very difficult to steer a middle course. Ultimately it may be impossible, but I think the "pro and anti" approach Slim suggests is a cop out. I have no doubt, personally, that virtually all readers would find the pro side more credible, but that's not the point. Let's not forget that most of us here are doing our best to be good Wikipedians by leaving our pov outside the door when we come here. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't, but at least we're trying. Should we give up? Ermintrude 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only speak with any real knowledge about my experiences with animal testing in New Zealand, and the situation here is as murky as anywhere. In New Zealand, in 2004, 246,000 animals were used in testing. Of these 10,459 were subjected to "very severe suffering". However there is very little publicly available information on the nature of these experiments (most institutions release only the numbers and types of animals used), adn efforts to obtain this type of information through freedom of information type requests by animal welfare and animal rights organisations is rebuffed with claims of commercial sensitivity. In light of this context, that there is little verified evidence of abuse is very unsuprising. The most egregious suffering tends to be obscured for obvious reasons. Similarly animal rights groups target the worst suffering, both to prevent it, and to call into question the practice of animal testing itself.

Many people would claim that very severe suffering is _in itself abuse_ (although others would claim that under some circumstances experiments of this kind may be justified).

Maybe most people would find the 'pro' side more credible if the scientific evidence was laid out. Maybe their 'anti' opponents would be able to present enough evidence to present reasonable doubt, as groups such as PCRM do. Perhaps if the suffering was well documented in this article (video or audio material of suffering primates anyone? :) 'most people' would oppose it. This being an encyclopaedia, this topic is too controversial to not have both sides well documented.

The whole debate between pro and anti belies the fact that there are other positions such as reductionism (although by this I mean active reductionism, not the oft repeated claims of those who have made little effort to move to other models) which may in the end narrow the gaps between either side. And of course there are those who oppose most animal testing because they believe it leads to misleading scientific results, but beleive that some experiments do provide valid and useful information transferrable to humans. There are people who do not oppose experiments that cause little or no suffering to the animals involved.

My apologies if I'm summarising the debate (or worse summarising it badly) but there is a tendency for things to get polarised and for intervening positions to be drowned out. This being the case I think that the pro-anti approach would result in a screaming match and would be a step in the wrong direction. Mostlyharmless 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more tempted to suggest the pros write the anti pages and the antis write the pros pages. Not only would it be fun, but both might learn something. Seriously though, i think that would just turn into a propoganda war, Slim. While it is tiring to have to debate every single point (and i've only been here a week!) i don't think it will inevitably result in mediocrity. I'm perhaps more willing than other to let things slide from either side, as i'm a firm believer that the facts stand by themselves and allowing people to make their on POV. I don't believe making sure what is perceived as an anti statement is always 100% countered by a pro (and vice versa) is that essential, as any one sentense is not going to alter the anyones opinion and we have to assume some level of intelligence in the reader to understand that there is always an opposing viewpoint, even if not explicitly stated. I would say this: if you are pro and confident that you are correct, let the anti proponants have their fair share of editing. If you are anti, give the pros a chance to have their say also. But do it on this page first, there are enough people here with moderate views to ensure that the end result will be fair. Rockpocket 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to harmless, i repeat what i've said above, in terms of this article, abuse can only be used in the objective sense (i.e. 'unlawful') as opposed to a subjective one ('wrongful'). If we want to use the term 'abuse' to mean 'wrongful in your/mine/his/her opinion' then this should be qualified each time. As it is currently, we have used 'abuse' when there is documented evidence of illegal activity and 'alleged abuse' when not. It seems you are equating 'suffering' with 'abuse' which are not synonomous - abuse causes suffering, but suffering need not be caused by abuse. Otherwise i think you sum up the situation pretty well. I think we have tried to incorporate the more centrist views where possible (see the 3Rs section for the various anti takes on these principles). Why don't you stick around and offer your take one of the sections? Rockpocket 05:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Botox

A couple of concerns about the passage regarding Botox (which is a registered trademark - should they be capitalised)? The phrase: "due to a legal loophole, the LD50 test is still used on every batch of botox "anti-wrinkle" preparations", is kind of leading, i feel, as there is no 'loophole' (which is a subjective term anyway). We have already stated elsewhere that all drugs require testing and Botox is a licenced drug, so how is it a loophole? 'Loophole' (An ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect) is not the correct word because Allergan most certainly didn't exploit anything to avoid an effect. They and the British government would have loved it if the did not have to test Botox on animals (for cost and PR reasons, if nothing else). This is simply an inevitable effect of using important medical procedures for trivial purposes. The 'raid' makes it sound like this was a grand expose, when it was common knowledge to anyone that knows anything about Botox. Obviously not The Daily Mail. What the raid did reveal was what tests were explicitly used which is shocking when the drug is used trivially for cosmetics, but perhaps not when one considers its medical uses and potency. It also suggests that Botox is unique in exploiting this "loophole", which is unfair and not true. I think the key point is that some drugs today have extensive consmetic purposes and those require animal testing also. I propose changing this:

"Although the British Home Office stopped giving licences to test finished cosmetic products in 1998, a raid on a laboratory in 2004 revealed that, due to a legal loophole, the LD50 test is still used on every batch of botox "anti-wrinkle" preparations. [77] Botox is derived from a toxin so potent that .09 mg, administered intravenously, is lethal to a grown human being. As botox treatments are used for non-cosmetic purposes in the treatment of certain muscle disorders, it is not bound by the regulations specific to cosmetic testing. [78]"

to something like this:

"Although the British Home Office stopped giving licences to test finished cosmetic products in 1998, compounds that have both cosmetic and medicinal uses, such as the "anti-wrinkle" preparation Botox, are still bound by the regulations requiring animal testing. A raid on a laboratory in 2004 revealed that the LD50 test is still used on every batch of Botox (a toxin that, when administered intravenously, is lethal to humans) to establish potency."

Thoughts? Rockpocket 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your version is better. If you know which other drug is used for cosmetic purposes and therefore tested on animals, could you include some of these examples too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So i've made this change also, including a few other examples of anti-wrinkle cosmetics that were spun out from medical applications (living in southern California, i'm all to familiar with them... Restylane and Botox are as common as asprin here!). If anyone knows an example from another field of cosmetics, it might be good to use that too, but i can't think of one off the top of my head though. On the cosmetics section, i'm thinking it might be a good idea to move it to become a subsection of the 'types of experiments'. Once all the types of experiments are in, we may be able to edit them down a bit to avoid repetition. That would make better sense if they were all together. A few other points:

While some cosmetics manufacturers have genuinely stopped all animal testing of their products, others continue to test. Companies that continue to perform cosmetic testing on animals may falsely claim that they do not do this in their advertising and on their products — or choose not to state either way.

While i personally don't doubt this for a second, i would suggest to leave it in there we should have a decent independent source. Otherwise it should probably be phrased as an allegation.

...the U.S. has also been a leader in developing cell culture alternatives (although most people are blissfully unaware that cell culture involves animal exploitation).

How did that sneak in? Again while probably very true, i don't think that phrasing is appropriate. The whole sentense is probably redundant, anyway, as that point is made clear in the alternatives section.

Re-using existing test data obtained from previous animal testing is generally not considered to be cosmetic testing on animals; however, the acceptability of this to opponents of testing is inversely proportional to how recent the data is.

Now it could just be because its late and i'm tired, but does that sentense seem really, really complex to anyone else? My head hurts thinking about it. I think i understand what it means, but surely it could be phrased in an more accessible way? Plus, the whole section below that is lacking citations.... let battle commence! ;-) Rockpocket 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Public opinion

As per my original comments on this article, i'd quite like to include a short section on public opinion. It seems to me that a lot of the feeling about default tone/POV can be diffused by making some statements about what the general public appear to think based on polls and referenda. I know this has the potential to be a minefield, but i don't think it has to, and here is why:

Unsurprisingly, polls commissioned by anti groups tend to suggest strong support against testing. Polls by pro groups often give the opposite indication, but in a much less striking way. This can quite easily be stated with one or two examples. However, when you look at polls from moderate commissioning groups - with less of an obvious pro/anti agenda - you begin to see the opinion falls much closer together. In my opinion, the UK Guardian newspaper's commission is one of the more neutral (Its a liberal newspaper, in the US sense of the word, and therefore probably seen as alightly anti). Its shows narrowly in favour of testing overall, but with some demographics against (18-34 yr olds against, with women split down the middle). The UK MRC and New Scientist also commissioned a polls (both, from a neutral point of view, might be seen as a pro-testing, but not in a major way). Both of these found that that cold start questions found opinion against testing, but when 'warmed' by an preable about scientific justification (real or imagined, depending on your opinion) of testing, swung back to about even or slightly in favour of testing. So i think overall we could claim these show that there is a large split (in the UK) on opinion, with significant minorities feeling strongly either way and the 'swing vote' of around 20% largely undecided (and uneducated) on the issue. This is consistant with the results of Swiss referenda on the subject, during which 2 extreme proposals for complete banning of animals tests were voted down by 70%, but a moderate proposition asking for a ban on painful experiments with declared exceptions, was only rejected by 56%. So i think its fair to conclude that polls suggest: In Switzerland and the UK at least, there are currently slight majority opinions for controlled experimentation overall (however this is based on widespread acceptance of the pro- scientific justification which may or may not be accurate. That said, the opposition is based upon the anti- justification, the accuracy of which is also in question). There is majority support for further limiting testing by species, purpose of experiment and type of experiment. Moreover, the demographics suggest that public opinion may change dramatically within a generation. It should also be stated that these two states are generally considered 'animal loving countries' and that anti-testing views tend to be more marginal in other countries.

I think (hope) this is a fair skeleton for a section on opinion. However, i could do with other polls from moderate commissioning groups (ideally from other countries), information on other referenda (if they exists). This may not work out as something we can agree on, and if that is the case then it might be better to leave it out all together, but i think that we could get the point across about how divissive this is without turning it into a fight about which side has the most support. Since i haven't written it yet, there is little point criticising the specifics of what i have fleshed out above, but general comments, ideas, good polls and suggestions are all welcome before i put something up for specific criticism. Thanks. 71.136.115.246 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of getting into polls, which are notoriously unreliable, and it would mean we'd have to keep updating the section as new polls were conducted. The Guardian and Observer are strongly anti-animal rights, so any poll conducted by them could not be considered as coming from the anti-side. If any polls are to be mentioned, we have to include something from the anti side too. Also, I'm not sure why you see Britain as animal loving. I think that may be a view it has of itself, which isn't necessarily shared elsewhere e.g. remember the British response to the foot and mouth outbreak. Finally, this article isn't about animal testing in Britain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Slim. Public opinion polls pose insurmountable problems in an article like this. Best to stay well away from them. --SpinyNorman 06:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm glad you two are able to agree on something. Perhaps you are right about opinion polls, but it would be good to have something about solid about public opinion if possible. The Swiss referenda, at least, are valid. There may be further electoral propositions we could use. As for Britian as being perceived as animals lovers, even the antis appear to agree:

• "...brings shame on Britain as a nation of animal lovers", Animal Aid [17]
• "These days we think of England as a nation of animal lovers",The Animal Attraction, ABC, Australia [18]
• "...Great Britain's reputation as a nation of animal lovers", Christopher Anderegg, Swiss Action for Humans and Animals, Zurich, Switzerland [19]
• "...will be worthy of our reputation as a nation of animal lovers", Defra [20]
• "...worthy of our reputation as a nation of animal lovers", Animal Welfare Minister, Ben Bradshaw [21]
• "The UK does not look like losing its unique reputation as a nation of animal lovers", BBC, [22]

Its a common refrain, and when you consider the size of the anti lobby when the UK has the most strict regulation in the world, i think its justified. Its also no co-incidence that all the polls are from the UK (not to mention 90% of the other sources on this article) as no other country - with the possible exception of Switzerland - is so obsessed with animal welfare. Rockpocket 07:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

But note that your sources are British. As I said above, you may see yourselves that way, but it's not necessarily a view shared elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this page needs to stop talking about the UK, because the article isn't about the UK. As Rockpocket says, too many of the sources are British already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin and SpinyNorman that it's not possible to have anything solid on public opinion on this page, particularly in the space available: it's a very complex area. It's usually inadvisable to compare different poll results, because of significant differences in methodology, context and the wording of questions.

A couple of specific comments (about the UK situation, sorry, but it's what I know most about, and I started writing this comment a couple of hours ago!) related to the discussion above. All the quality newspapers in the UK, with the possible exception of the Independent, accept the need to use animals in research. The 'redtops' no longer run anti-campaigns, which suggests a swing against the antis. And polls are normally carried out by reputable polling companies, who are commissioned by newspapers, magazines or groups.

A further difficulty is that the characterisation of positions here as 'pro' and 'anti' may be a useful shorthand, but it can't be used to reflect the real debate or wider public opinion. I believe the 'anti' position is fairly clear - it is abolitionist - but what is the 'pro' position? Although there may be cultural differences around the world, I believe that few people are unconditionally 'for' animal research, even scientists. There are nuanced positions: people may accept that it is necessary provided that it's well-controlled, suffering is minimised, alternatives are fully considered, that it's used for serious medical purposes. Maybe the real debate turns on the extent to which people believe that animal research measures up to these conditions. The MORI poll in the UK for MRC mentioned earlier did attempt to tease out these attitudes, but it was the subject of a complaint to the Market Research Society by BUAV. The complaint wasn't upheld, but it shows the difficulty of getting any consensus in this area. 217.206.196.219 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be against me here, so i accept that and withdraw the suggestion. But i'll leave it with two points - firstly, Slim, two of those quotes were from non-British sources (one Australian, one Swiss). There are plenty more non British sources saying the same things, as a simple Google will reveal. I live in the USA, and a snap poll of American friends reveals that most have that opinion. Whether its deserved or not, that is a commonly held belief. Secondly, i completely agree that we should stop talking about the UK, but seeing as the majority of the relevent material appears to come from there (or the US), its difficult to do so if we wish to have good source coverage. Unfortunatley the legislation requiring publication of animal numbers, the activist groups with resources to counter, the population with a generally symapthetic ear and the number of newspapers with an appetite for scandal is not matched in any country in the world (with the possible exception of Switzerland). If you can come up with some such good sources with a more international flavour, then i would fully support their inclusion. Many South American countries have atrocious reputations for animal experimentation (pictures of which can usually be seen on anti-groups' stalls in British city centres, labelled as being taken inside UK facilities) If you can find documented evidence of this - outside anti-group speculation - then it would be a great addition. Good luck. However, even UK anti-groups don't like talking about the atrocious records of other countries, as they are afriad that would make the public think that it was better animals were experimented on at home, where there are much stricter regulations. Seeing as you're a robust contributer to articles of numerous British activists - and appear to be a firm supporter of BUAV as the reputable source on the subject - you would be aware of this. Rockpocket

Archive Policy for this article

In an unrelated to the article tangent, I would like to ask what people think regarding the length of time that should be left between "archivings" of this talk page. It is starting to get long again and will likely be too big for anyone with a modem in the next week or so (if it isn't already). How about a 1 month time limit or is this too short? -localzuk 12:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think, as the talk page is now 143kb long (will be longer now I have typed this), we need to archive again in a few days. If it is ok with everyone, I will archive again on Friday 20th Jan. -Localzuk (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have archived the page again. -Localzuk (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons

The article in question took an unbiased position on whether testing on nonhuman animals is acceptable, but a similar page considered similar experiments on unconsenting humans to be an atrocity, without consulting opposing viewpoints. In the interests of true neutrality, you should include arguments in favor of testing on humans under the same rules used for testing on nonhuman animals, whatever those rules may be. Without these arguments in place in the human-experimentation articles, you make an inherent value judgement; you assume the biased position that humans are superior and/or more worthy of consideration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.73.180 (talk • contribs)

Could you explain what you mean? Are you referring to the entire Animal testing article? If so, the article is supposed to discuss Animal testing as a practice - not put a moral slant on the position of humans over animals. It is an encyclopedia article that is supposed to be free from POV and is supposed to point out facts as covered by references. I may be misunderstanding you though. -Localzuk (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

New source

Have just seen the Nuffield Council on Bioethics The ethics of research involving animals - a guide to the report accessible from here [23]. This is an 8-page summary "setting out some of the arguments and recommendations that are discussed in more detail" in the original 2005, 330-page, independent report. Some of this is non-UK-specific and could be useful as a source for parts of this article that still need work, eg types of experiment.

For instance, under "Types of research involving animals", the report says: "There are three main reasons for using animals in research:

■ To advance scientific knowledge

‘Basic research’ increases scientific knowledge about the way animals and humans behave, or develop and function biologically. It is not necessarily intended to lead to applications for humans [Chapter 5].

■ To study disease and develop medicines

Animals are used as models to understand disease processes and to develop new vaccines and medicines. Genetically modified (GM) animals, particularly mice, are used to study the role of genes in disease processes. Both these types of research often draw on findings from basic research [Chapters 6–8].

■ To assess the safety of chemicals

Animals are used in toxicological studies to help test the safety of a range of substances that could be harmful to animals, humans or the environment. These include household and industrial chemicals, herbicides, fertilisers, and food additives [Chapter 9]."

I suggest using the first two points, with minimal edits, as introductions to new sub-sections to balance out what is currently an overlong emphasis on toxicological testing. They can then be expanded by someone like RockPocket, who has volunteered to do this. What does anyone think? 217.206.196.219 10:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold and go for it. Just ensure that no unsourced info gets added as I will remove it (I am planning on an unsourced info removal spree on a few articles soon - so I won't be choosing a 'side').-Localzuk (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am still planning on expanding on the pure and applied research section, just a bit snowed under at work at the moment :( Rockpocket 00:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, most of the 'types of experiment' section seems to be unsourced right now? Ermintrude 13:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And as such it should not be included. A lot of the information on here is unsourced, and as it is a controversial article it should not be here. The point I am trying to make is that unless it is sourced then it is a mute point to discuss as we can't confirm it either way so it shouldn't be there. We will never have a NPOV article until we have everything sourced. -Localzuk (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, have inserted the three categories, under types of experiment, as discussed. Have also reordered some of the content in this section. The logical place for the drug testing sub-section, and the picture of the dogs, is under the second header "studying disease and developing medicines". Obviously each sub-section needs some content development, and the last section on assessing the safety of chemicals needs serious pruning of unsourced material. I think the similar categorisation in the intro (which we all seem to agree is too long) is now redundant, but I will leave it to others to cut or edit. I recall one admin virtually banned anyone whom she thought didn't share her POV from making deletions. Does this rule still apply? 217.206.196.219 13:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think event the admin you refer to accepted that editing the article down would be prudent, the difference in opinion stems from how it would be done and whom it was edited by. If you want to give it a go, then do so. On a slight tangent, i notice that all vivisection and animal testing articles have a right hand column headed "animal rights" listing activists etc. While i don't dispute their relevence to one side of the debate, i do wonder if links to some less anti specific articles should not be given equal prominence? There are plently or articles out there documenting noteworthy discoveries and subjects that use(d) animal testing (eg Developmental biology, Molecular evolution, Monoclonal antibodies, Sonic hedgehog, Bruce effect, Dolly the sheep, Xenotransplantation...). I neither know the protocol for having these columns nor how to make one, so thoughts on the matter would be welcome. Rockpocket 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re editing down the article, specifically the introduction, I will consider doing it in a few days if there are no objections here. In my limited Wiki experience, that rh column is called a template. I agree that the article would benefit from an additional more positive template to balance this one, which seems to be a list of links to mainly 'anti' sources. A recent example of someting similar where good balance was achieved was a timeline on a UK TV website [24]. We could create a list of links covering similar subjects, maybe with a nice mouse picture or even a patient, but how to turn them into a 'medical advances' template for this article? 217.206.196.219 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that timeline, and i think there could be stuff to use there. I'll see if i can find any way of making one of those templates later. Rockpocket 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be sure to invite discussion before placing it on the page. I'm concerned that we'll end up with a box full of "advances" that have involved testing at some point but were not necessarily the outcome of testing alone. The question whether it's possible to achieve "advances" without testing is not actually settled, so you ought to source any template very carefully, lest your box be mistaken for simple POV pushing. The timeline in the link given by the anon would be entirely inappropriate. It doesn't have any discussion of the part testing played in the "advances" listed.Grace Note 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, the sentence relating to the House of Lords report that was deleted from the intro because that editor couldn't find it in the source given. I just took a look and here it is, with its own sources: "3.3 Some people believe, in addition, that animals may be used because they suffer less than humans would, if subject to the same procedures. This belief is partly verifiable. Some animals, certainly mammals and birds, have similar pain receptors and central nervous pathways to humans, and may therefore have much the same capacity to feel physical pain as humans do.[43] But the capacity to feel pain is not the same as the capacity to experience suffering or distress, and this is less easy to measure.[44]" We can discuss the actual wording used in the intro, but it is sourced correctly. 217.206.196.219 09:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting using that timeline per se. It contains some good examples of medical advances that depended on animal research, that's all. The suggestion was to use similar examples as a template - which, if I understand correctly, is a list of links to other Wikipedia articles on a particular theme. This template would balance out the animal rights template which is already in the article and could be seen as POV pushing. 217.206.196.218 09:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely object to your "editing down" the intro, whatever that means. It needs an anti-testing paragraph as it currently doesn't have one, so please don't make it even more pro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't know why you think I was going to make the intro more "pro". I refer you back just a couple of points in this discussion thread. My proposed edits were to remove the second paragraph wording "Animal experiments fall into three broad and overlapping categories: ..." and the three bullet points. This is because a) I think all agreed a long time ago that the intro was too long and b) similar (and sourced) text has been introduced further down under "Types of experiment". This section needs new content on basic and applied research, and the third category - toxicological tests - need to be better sourced. I was simply starting that process, which had been discussed and agreed with others here. 217.206.196.218 14:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. My concern is that for many people posting here, the pro-testing position is seen to be the default, NPOV one, but it isn't. It's just one POV. If that could be borne in mind while editing, it will save a lot of disagreement. I'm sorry that I misunderstood what you wrote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever shortened the House of Lords quote in the intro missed out the most important part. The moral basis of the pro-testing position is not that "there is a moral imperative for human beings to develop medical and veterinary science for the relief of suffering, among both humans and other animals." Rather, it is that "[t]he institution of morality, society, and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals," and are therefore morally entitled to use them for their own purposes.

It's the combination of these beliefs that leads to the pro-testing position. If it were only the first (which is all that had been left in the intro), we could test on humans. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

I deleted these statemnts earlier but they were re-added by an editor, so here I am proposing a vote whether these should be deleted:

1) The article states ...seven of the last ten Nobel Prizes for medicine have depended in part on animal research, [25], though whether that aspect of the research was necessary is in question. [26] [27]

I am proposing deleting (or moving) the second half which states: though whether that aspect of the research was necessary is in question. [28] [29] . The links here say nothing related to ANY of the last 10 Nobel prize discoveries, and therefore does not follow logically from the previous statement. Rather, they are general (and decidedly one-sided) statements saying that some medical discoveries could be done without animals.

2)The statement: Some people also believe that animals may suffer less during experiments than human beings would, arguing that although all mammals have similar pain receptors and central nervous system pathways and may feel physical pain in the same way, non-human mammals suffer less because they have a reduced capacity to remember and to anticipate pain. [30]. Is complete POV, the referenced source says nothing about this statement, and there is no proof that animals suffer less than humans.

Please vote/comment. Nrets 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nomination. Nrets 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - though i think they could both be worded and sourced better. Its accepted some animals suffer less than humans (most invertebrates, for example) as that is the basis for the exclusion of these animals from welfare acts. I agree about removing the mammalian part though, i saw some original research last week that proves (in a rather brutal manner) that mice are very good at remembering and anticipating painful situations. It is also true that there is wideheld beliefs among the anti-animal testing lobby that animal testing was not necessary to reach the breakthroughs in at least some Nobel prize winning work. The text could be more specific though. Rockpocket 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, by the same logic, you provide no evidence that "most IACUC committees regulate the use of all vertebrate species in research". Thus it is POV and should be deleted. Further down the page, it was stated that OLAW regulates mice, rate and birds "implicitly", contrasting this with the coverage of the Welfare Act and thereby illustrating the mess that governs US animal welfare. The information was there and it was sourced. Why the change? Rockpocket 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• The OLAW does not implicitly cover mice, rats and birds, it does so explicitly, on page 1 by defining lab animals as vertebrates. So not only does it cover birds and rodents, but also fish and amphibians. Pretty much all universities that perform research have government funding, thus IACUC's have to conform to the more stringent standards of the OLAW regulations. From reading this section you would think that the majority of research on rodents at US universities is completely unregulated, which is certainly not the case. As far as the Nobel Prize statement, maybe it can be reworded at the end of the paragraph: Some animal rights advocates believe that animal testing was not necessary to reach some of these breakthroughs, then it becomes NPOV and refers directly to its source. Nrets 17:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

From reading this section as it was, you get the impression that all research on rodents is not federally regulated (which is true), but that which is federally funded is. The source mentions vertebrates, but the point of that sentense is to imply, though not directly express (thus the term 'implicit') that OLAW differs from the Welfare act in terms of coverage by highlighting the difference. I have no problem with the removal of the word 'implict' per se, but i think you edits removes the point that these regulations are idiosynchratic (to say the least) and do not provide blanket protection as the UK Act does.

Moreover, if you wish to remove material that is not explicitly sourced, then should shouldn't introduce more without specific citations. "Most IACUC committees..." is unsourced. If you wish to leave that in there, add a citation. Otherwise it will be removed in Locazuks upcoming purge. Rockpocket 17:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)