Talk:Animal testing/Archive 10

Are there governments which don't condone or allow animal testing? The US and UK govt's are singled out in the lede. On the other hand, the anti-testing movement is probably the noisiest in these countries, so it seem appropriate to mention PETA and BUAV in the lede. In the EU animal testing is increasingly regulated from Brussels; there's a bit of discussion about that in the article, mostly in relation to cosmetics, but this is not mentioned at all. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it hasn't happened yet. Draft directives may change a lot before they are voted on, and even then may not be adopted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But there plenty of Wikipedia articles that discuss legislative proposals. This one seems significant enough to mention in here. There are some links to newspaper article at the bottom of the web page I've linked above. The article in The Guardian seems the most detailed. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about globalisation, however, this article really should pay more attention to the fact that tightening animal regulations in one country may result in companies outsourcing research to countries with less restrictive regulations. This is discussed a bit here. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's also in the "may or may not happen" department. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Although animal testing is the common term it is not the most accurate. Animal research encompasses all manner of animal experiments, whereas animal testing generally means safety testing. For instance when breeding two animals in order to experiment on the young, you would say you have "tested" on the parents, but you would have been part of the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This point is debated periodically. I have always preferred something other than "animal testing", but I've also lost this point each time it has come up. The British Home Office refers to content like the content of this page as "Research and testing using animals" which I think is accurate but longer. In the USA, the USDA refers to "animal care and use in research, testing, teaching, and exhibition", so animal use in research, testing, teaching, and exhibition would fit, but is way too long. There is also WP:NAME which encourages using the name readers will most broadly recognize. In the US, "animal research" would be a good name by this criteria, and "Animal testing" is scarcely recognized. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to write a paragraph about the 2006-2008 events described in PMID 18371494, mostly about attacks on scientists involved in non-human primate research. I hope the source is acceptable. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All I see on that page is a list of researchers with links to their work. Do you have links to the info you plan to add? Do you have a definition for terrorism? If you plan to use that word, you probably should. Are these threats you are talking about or attacks? Bob98133 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Biological Psychiatry is a scientific journal; you need subscription for full text online access or you can go to (practically any) academic library. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific journals are definitely good sources. The subject matter may or may not be appropriate for this page. "Terrorism" is a hot-word by wiki standards, if you include that word I recommend reading the wikipedia issues relating to its use before you use it. Better overview sources would complement the portions about prominent cases already. I'll check the article tomorrow. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a lot new there that couldn't be supported with more easily accessible sources - except maybe the bit about the ALF having a restraining order around UCLA researcher homes. I guess if the ALF strikes again they will have more charges the police can bring. The article, which is authored by a few dozen very eminent scientists, basically refers to the incidents at UCLA, UCSC, Utah, and OHSU, and refer to trends in activism in the UK and USA, as well as new legislative efforts. They do refer to the activists as terrorists pretty bluntly. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I backed out a bunch of changes made by jrtayloriv. There were numerous reasons. The lead photo, for example, was a heavily debated, consensus change, many months ago, and should be subject to debate. The space chimp, while dated, is a picture of animal testing provided by the animal testers, and is not as subject to claims of bias as the photos taken by animal rights activists. The ALF is not mentioned in the lead NOT because of omission of their viewpoint, but because the lead cannot mention everything, and BUAV and PETA are already linked in the lead. The addition of photos to the pain and suffering section lengthens the page, which already exceeds good page length guidelines, and the tag on the monkey photo was inappropriate, wrong, and unreferenced. The changes, en todo, were heavily biased, without adding referenced material. And the Silver Spring monkeys photo, because of the suspicion that it was staged by Pacheco (which is referenced on the Silver Spring monkey page), is not suitable on this page, but is suitable on the Silver Spring monkey page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the photos. You don't need to pretend that the reason that you removed the pictures in the "Pain" section was because of length of the page -- we both understand your reasons, so let's just talk honestly to each other. Let's forget about the pain photos for now, and talk about that in a seperate discussion later in order to keep this discussion focused.

As far as the picture in the intro: you said that the picture of the space chimp in the intro was provided by animal testers, so wouldn't that be biased in favor of animal testing? Perhaps we should try to find a photo of animal testing that was taken by a neutral third party -- would you be up to that?

And about the ALF in the intro. Do you not feel like they are notable enough? I understand that everything cannot be mentioned, but they are one of the most notable groups. Do you not agree with this? If so, what are your reasons. Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to add that, personally I feel that the lead would be more balanced by inserting the ALF in there in place of BUAV. BUAV and PETA both have similar beliefs and practices, while the ALF is markedly different from both of them in many respects. So I think that in order to balance out all viewpoints, the ALF should be included as well, or in place of BUAV, which is not quite as notable as PETA. Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead is another area that was discussed ad nauseam. You are going to feel handicapped editing the page if you do not know the history of the debate on the lead. Just as you think ALF should replace BUAV, others think HSUS should replace PETA. And so on. You simply cannot mention everything in the LEAD. I actually think mentioning only one group is fine, there is a WHOLE PAGE on animal rights groups. This page is about animal testing. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jrtaylor..Please try to stick to the subject. We may all have different POVs but Animalresearcher has provided valuable NPOV info and editing to this article. If you can find a "neutral" animal testing image, please do, but that has always been problematic. While ALF is notable, they are not a group in the true sense, but a movement in support of an ideology. As such, they have no membership or leadership, and understandably rarely supply references or research to support their actions, so they are less notable in the context of an article such as this. Bob98133 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob98133 -- I am trying to stick to the subject, namely two of the edits that Animalresearcher reverted.

• As far as the image being neutral -- personally, since the image caption did not make any conclusions about the image, I don't see how it wasn't neutral. It was just a more clear, modern, color photo, and took up less space -- which Animalresearch is concerned about as well. If people don't believe that animals have feelings, they will see nothing in the picture. If they do then they will. That would be true for any picture of an animal being experimented on. For instance, I'll be open. Personally, the picture of the space chimp bothers me as much as the photo that I put up. It's just that it's old, and in black and white, and does not depict modern research. What do you think about my suggestion of a photo from a neutral third party -- maybe a news reporter, instead of a researcher or an activist?
• As far as the ALF being a movement -- that is an example of one of the types of things I mentioned that I think makes them very different from PETA or BUAV, along with their beliefs and tactics. And while they might not self-publish references suitable for Wikipedia, there have been immense amounts of coverage of their actions and beliefs in reliable sources that are suitable for Wikipedia. That is what I meant by notable -- noted regularly in numerous reliable sources. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Having no leadership or official membership roll does not at all affect their validity as an organization, it merely makes them different from many other types of organizations.Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The image in the lead of the space chimp is not "biased" towards animal testers, imho. It clearly shows restraint and invasive procedures on the most contentious species used in testing. However, it is provided public domain by NASA, and we can identify the group doing the testing, their aims, as well as having a visual graphic of the impact on the animal. The picture you provided was lower quality, not identified with any testing agency or purpose, and clearly chosen to show the negative impact of the testing on the animal without reference to the impact of the testing on society. There are two sides to testing - the NASA image shows both. Your image shows a particularly negative impact of one. Good images are a difficult problem at wikipedia, especially for animal testing. You really ought to go read the discussion pages to see how we arrived at the chimp. There were a lot of calls to use rodents because of their prominence in testing compared to primates. There were calls to use a picture of a shaved macaque in a cage (again, there is no reference to what the testing may have constituted for that animal), and the people more concerned with animal rights were adamant about using a primate. The NASA archives are all public domain pictures, have historical relevance, and show primates in a view that identifies both the purpose of the testing and the impact on the animal. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Another issue I had with the edits is that they were obviously inspired by your personal beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that, mine are too, obviously. But Wikipedia is not a congruence of personal beliefs. It is a collective of reliable third party sources to the topic at hand. Accordingly, if there are good articles on animal testing that make an argument that ALF is more notable than BUAV, you could argue they should be included in the lead instead. I think you will find that BUAV is in the press far more often, as they argue in front of legislative bodies a lot, and ALF cannot do that. You may actually find that HSUS is more notable than either BUAV or PETA (I suspect you would). But the page should be based on referenced, reliable, third party sources with viewpoints derived from those sources. Your edits added no new references, they simply shifted bias, made some statements that are demonstrably false, and added POV photos, in some cases replacing consensus photos. I think this page is relatively stable currently - there have been AT LEAST a dozen people who have combed over third party sources, and lots of editing debate from people with very different POVs who all worked it out. But as the third party reliably sourced material changes, the page should change also. And there is no guarantee we've found all the reliable third party material. But I personally find it doubtful that any major changes will come to this page in the near future. And if they do, they will need to be justified in reliable third party sources. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You make a very good point about the image. I understand the choice to use it now. Unfortunately I am going to have to be away from Wikipedia for a while, but when I get back, I would like to discuss the topic of including the ALF in the intro. I will open up a new topic in this discussion page to do so. Thanks for being straightforward and taking the time to explain your reasoning in removing my edits. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just happened by and noted that the section of regulation is pretty sparse, especially given that I've had to sit through 3-hour classes on the subject 3 times now. There's a half-dozen agencies involved, loads of rules that can be linked to, more detailed descriptions of IACUC procedures, and a description of penalties for violations. As it stands, it makes no mention of the usual bi-annual IACUC inspections, the random surprise inspections from any of the half-dozen regulatory bodies, or the extremely high cost for even minor violations (I recall hearing of one minor issue garnering a $10,000 *per day* fine). It also gives the impression that IACUC 'rubber-stamps' most things, when in reality, any procedure differing from the most common and routine can take months of back-and-forth to get accepted. Oh, it also doesn't mention that at many institutions, all animal care is handled by assistants directly employed by IACUC. Unfortunately, I'm bogged down in editing articles closer to my research area, but the information should be all over the web - including 'IACUC' in a google search will often bring up entire PDF documents with 40+ pages of policy. Mokele (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is already quite long. Perhaps animal testing regulation should be a separate article. For every rule mentioned, there will be cases in which the rule was broken, so simply presenting a laundry list of rules that govern IACUCs would suggest that these rules are inviolate. Adding a history of violations would be unwieldy. The possibility of duplication and redundancy do not appear to be exhaustively investigated by all IACUCs, whom I believe are generally composed of busy volunteers with other obligations, nor is the mandate to investigate alternatives always adhered to. Determination of unnecessarily painful procedures has also been controversial. I'm all for all of the referenced information to be available, but I'm not sure that this article would be the best place. Bob98133 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bob98133. This article covers animal testing worldwide. Certainly some mention of IACUCs should occur, as they are central to regulation in the USA, but the rest of the world is not covered by IACUCs. The IACUC has its own page. I've been meaning to add to it for some time, as it might make good use of the years I've spent on one. Mokele, I am sorry to hear your IACUC is inefficient - there is a lot of that going around these days. However, it would be a pretty substantial issue if ANY institution employed caretakers through an IACUC - they should be employed through some type of Lab Animal Services that is ALSO regulated by the IACUC, but not provided by the IACUC. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mokele, and Bob, I've had at it with the IACUC page to bring it up to speed, and also minorly tweaked the IACUC relevant section on the Animal Testing page. Have a look. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Animalresearcher - I made some minor punctuation changes to the IACUC page - they might not be technically, gramically correct, but I hope they improve the look. If you disagree, feel free to revert, it's a minor issue. As earlier, my only complaint with listing the IACUC rules is that it implies that they are always followed, but the sections on Reliability in IACUC and the Ethics section in this article add balance, so on the whole, great job. Thanks for your work on these. Bob98133 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the sources are no longer present [web page removed, etc.] Can someone fix them please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.76.210 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The link for the "animals used for animal testing" diagram, link number 40, does not work, it is: 40^ a b c Fifth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union Commission of the European Communities, published November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.101.145 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this section in the discussion page once the edit is completed.

Due to the page being locked, I am not authorised to fix this sentence:

"These attacks, as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme," this prompted the US government to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.[177] "

It is not a funtional sentence and could possibly be repaired by removing the word "this" as in: extreme," this prompted the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElTimbalino (talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The citation given doesn't appear to me to state any documented views of anti vivisectionists about pure research. Possibly modify this statement, unless citations can be found supporting the assertion ?

"Those opposed to animal testing object that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it may produce unforeseen benefits, rendering the distinction between pure and applied research — research that has a specific practical aim — unclear.[99]" --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving this fairly recent addition here, because it isn't neutral, and making it so would make the lead too long.

The practice of animal testing is regulated to various extents in different countries. In 1984 the WHO's Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) issued International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals, and developed countries have instituted regulatory frameworks that are more extensive. In the United States and in many other countries, review committees serve as gatekeepers for determining whether the use of animals proposed is warranted. They examine protocols to see if these can be improved by reducing or replacing animal use, and aim to minimize suffering.^[1] The trend in developed nations to offshore trials in biomedical research has also affected preclinical testing on animals, although to a lesser extent than clinical trials on humans.^[2]

The anti-testing position is that the regulations are a joke, and that animal labs are not properly inspected. As this is a major complaint about animal testing, we would need to elaborate in some detail. I therefore suggest we leave this for the body of the text. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to explain why I have reverted some edits that, in effect, include animal observation within the "broader" definition of vivisection. Unless an editor can find a reliable source that specifically includes that definition (as opposed to describing kinds of experimental studies in which animals are observed, but without using the word vivisection), it seems to me that defining the term in this way is unverifiable. But I think I understand what the editor might be getting at: there are some critics of animal experimentation who consider even noninvasive studies of animals to be ethically improper. However, I am not aware of a scholarly use of the word vivisection for that. Perhaps a referenced example could be found of a critic of research misusing the word vivisection in this way, which might be interesting to include, and to which I would have no objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while I can see by logical inference that the word might be used in this way, we need a source actually using the word in this way in order to say that this use/misuse occurs. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the section as it stands. It says "The term is now used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals". Note "any experiment", without any further qualification. That means behavior, ecology, observation, genetic testing, anything, even if non-harmful, non-invasive, or purely observational. I agree that such a broad definition is, to put it mildly, moronic. However, to leave that definition hanging out there, without pointing out how blatantly stupid it is, is blatant NPOV. You're absolutely correct that there's no scholarly use of the term in that sense, but by that standard, the broad sense shouldn't be in the definition at all. IMHO, it's NPOV to leave it as is - the "broad definition" should be removed, or there should be something pointed out it's stupidity (which is not OR under the rule of things that are immediately apparent via simple logic). Frankly, I'd prefer the former option, because I doubt anyone, scholarly or otherwise, has had sufficient brain damage to refer to non-invasive methods as "vivisection". Mokele (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I'm not convinced, then, that expanding on "behavior, ecology, observation..." and so forth really adds much beyond making a WP:POINT. It is difficult to point "out how blatantly stupid it is" without becoming POV the other way. I hope that the edit I made, expanding on what the Oxford dictionary says, is a step in the right direction. (There's no shortage of places around Wikipedia where it would be good to correct an anti-animal research POV, but this paragraph probably isn't it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think it's an improvement. Have a gander at the slight wording change I made - I felt the old wording made the "broad" definition seem as if it was now widely accepted and used. Mokele (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It works for me. It loses the distinction between "historical" and "present-day" usage, but I think I agree with you that the claim of present-day usage was inadequately sourced and undue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to use wiki very well so I'm not sure how to explain this but scroll to the bottom of Animal Testing(and 'Blind Experiment' among others) and you will see this:

No idea what that include is or how to remove it just bringing it to someone's attention. It's the "Medical research studies" include that you use with these brackets { } —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.193.189 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 November 2009

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You can find information about editing help at Help:Contents. I've signed your message for you and moved it down to be in chronological order. The purpose of the template is to help readers find other, related articles (click where it says "show"). It serves a useful purpose, and I do not know of any valid reason to remove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the title needs to be re-thought, as well as the whole section. Firstly, the inclusion of Dolly seems out of place among the other cases. Secondly, the title is misleading - these are prominent *abuse* cases. "Prominent cases" would better describe prominent research that has used animals, such as the use of frogs to understand muscle physiology, squid to understand neurons, Drosophila for genetics, etc. And last, but by far not least, it strikes me as highly NPOV to have a two-page list of abuse cases without any similarly sizable section on benefits. Mokele (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I agree 100% --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If others also agree, the question becomes what to do. I'll say off the bat that we shouldn't delete the information (it's well-sourced & therefore an asset to WP), but maybe we should move it to another page specifically dealing with abuse or putative abuse? I think it would be beneficial to see some prominent examples of animal experiments like I suggested above, so people get an idea of what may be involved in any given experiment.Mokele (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to move it to a separate page, per WP:CFORK. It would end up becoming a POV page for anti-science POV, and we have too many of those as it is. Better would be to deal with both sides of the coin here, which is actually what you started to describe in your first comment. First, the present section should be renamed more accurately as "Prominent abuse cases". Then, a section should be added with prominent examples of beneficial experiments. That latter one is obviously more work, but WP:There is no deadline, and that's the way things work here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I meant moving them to a page that already exists on the topic, but that also does present problems, you're right. I think your plan is a good one, but the first metric should be defining "prominent" - otherwise I could just cut and paste that last 40 years of the New England Journal of Medicine, increasing the page size 300-fold while still barely scratching the surface. The same for abuse cases - this isn't really the home for every case, major or minor or unsubstantiated. Maybe the "top 5" of each as a good starting point? Squid axons, frog muscles, fly genetics, zebrafish development, and knockout mice seems like a good list to me, but I'm a physiologist by trade so therefore biased. I think we should probably stay close to basic science that's yielded large health benefits, since that's pretty central to the arguments that get put forth. Mokele (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is good; we are making good progress here. Alas, I'm basically a physiologist too. I would think your list of five could be modified to better reflect control of infectious disease. I'm pretty sure there are some micro/molecular biology types who watch this page, so I hope they can provide some advice here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The LEAD section should refer roughly proportionally to the material in the page. The Fbrnabr edits, while referenced, distorted the LEAD from its prior balance - a balance which had been carefully sought and fought over. Including that much PRO-testing advocacy in the lead will require space for rebuttal - and the page will degenerate into a fight over advocacy. Advocacy has its place - pro AND con - but this page is about the use of animals in testing, teaching, and research, and not principally about advocacy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Rklawton (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this article is not supposedly a pro AND con article I find that it is strongly biased towards con views. It would not require much extra space to provide facts on the number of medical cures/drugs and nobel prizes attained through animal testing --Timmyoz (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's discussed a bit in "Prominent cases" further down this page. I've been meaning to add stuff, but haven't had the time. If you can add it, go right ahead. Mokele (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)