Talk:Animal testing/Archive 6

Could editors adding sources please give full citations. Several are being written as just a URL between two refs tags, which is worse than just adding the URL after the sentence. A footnote should be added like this:

<ref name=Abramowitz>Abramowitz, Michael. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101401051.html "White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects"], ''The Washington Post'', October 15, 2006.</ref>

which renders a number like this ^[1] in the article and the citation in the Notes section like this:

Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And the next time you use that same article as a source, you only have to write <ref name=Abramowitz/> SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, for Home Office stats with different page ref numbers, the way to do it is (for page 1):

<ref name=HomeOffice1>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_06_animaltesting.pdf "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 2005] {{pdflink}}, Home Office, p.1.</ref>

And repeat for each different page number. Otherwise we just have a bunch of URLs and no one can know what the source is without clicking on it; and in this case, based on the URL, it looks as though the source is the BBC, which it isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of help I like. Thanks SV!Rbogle 23:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rbogle, you're welcome. I should add that, in order for the full citation to appear in a Notes/Foonotes/References section, you have to write <references/> at the end of the page, and then the citations magically appear. This is usually done under the header ==Notes== Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's my impression that virtually any edits that might make the article appear more favorable towards animal research, or show the opponents of animal research in a bad light, are almost instantaneously reverted. In many cases this is done by an admin.

In particular, the Controversy section by its format incites controversy only about individual research institutions. My one-line edit to include the FBR Illegal Incident Report was immediately reverted. I have noticed that several other editors' attempts to change the article have also been thwarted by administrative resistance. Why is this? Haber 04:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to include with regards to the report? Rockpocket 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The original edit read, "In some cases animal rights activists have been involved in illegal incidents." Haber 04:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me that, since ALF actions and accusations are listed under the controversy section, it is equally pertinant to note that leading associates of the Front have been convicted for criminal activities. I would support your contribution in the section on Britches or the UCLA threats (both of which were ALF related actions), perhaps modified to "...animal rights activists associated with the ALF have been involved...". However, i'm not too keen on the more general statement as it was before, especially as it could have been read to imply that PETA and BUAV activists were involved in illegal incidents. Rockpocket 06:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just slapped into the middle of some other topic, with no concern for the writing or narrative flow. Can we randomly slap in a similar sentence about researchers — "In some cases, animal researchers have been involved in illegal incidents" — and count how many seconds it survives? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict twice!)

The problem I have with that addition (haber's one) is that it is too sweeping and generalised. It uses 'some' which is a weasel word which should be avoided. Unless the addition is specific about it I don't really think it should be included - otherwise, as rockpocket points out, it could be seen as implying that those activists are from groups such as PETA and the like. Also, Haber, please assume good faith, don't instantly come to the conclusion that things are blanket reverted - 99% of the time there is a good reason for such reverts.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, there needs to be some context. Why is it suddenly being mentioned? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket's idea is fine with me. This addition is well-documented and addresses a very common perception, that animal rights activists refuse to operate within the boundaries of the law. If you don't like where it is put please move it to a more suitable location. You are also allowed to change the phrasing of things rather than blanking them.

The reason I used the POV tag is because I have seen other contributors also face the same resistance. I came late to the argument, but I think the NASA chimps would be good opening pictures. Even better would be Laika, the most famous lab animal ever. There's a nice picture on her page. Haber 21:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would better suit being included in the ALF article, as that link is not there from what I can see. It just seems a bit random stuck at the bottom of a section that focuses on individual cases. Maybe an intro should be included and this placed within there?

Also, you still should assume good faith, as you have seen things but not questioned them here before and instantly thought 'oh, it is just blanket removal'. Assuming good faith is important else we will all end up on a site where no-one trusts the actions of anyone else.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok everyone has bad faith except for you. We get it. The basic point is that several organizations are attempting to disrupt a legal activity using illegal methods. This is very relevant to the subject of "animal testing", and it does not come across in the article as it stands. Haber 01:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as you seem to have missed what I posted earlier, I'll quote it here:

The article is about animal testing and the controversy surrounding it. To properly discuss these issues within the context of the page, we need to be able to summarise what the arguments relating to the various organisations, actions and events. Specifically labelling the ALF as a terrorist group is not relevant as it is not specifically relevant within the context of the discussion - they are not only a 'designated terrorist group' within the scope of this article, they are generally labelled this for actions across the spectrum of animal rights. If HLS were also involved in hunting or factory farming, I would not expect mention of this to be placed here as it is not relevant within the article's scope.

What I am saying is that we do not need to go into overspecifics about organisations on this page as this should be left to the articles about them. Here, we summarise their links to the subject matter and saying that the ALF is a designated terrorist group according to the FBI is not a summary of their link to this article.

Also, assuming good faith does require some evidence to help it along. So, for example, a user who comes to an article and instantly states that there are users (who have been editing the article for 2 years or so) who are blanket removing content to forward their anti-testing pov. This shows a severe lack of good faith I'm afraid. As you may notice, the article is heavily biased already to a pro testing slant with, for example, the introduction barely mentioning its opposition. (ie. there is a single line which states 'Opponents of animal testing strongly contest these views.'-Localzuk^(talk) 10:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats not entirely true, Localzuk. Remember the article is principally about animal testing/experimentation, not about the controversy/criticism. The the intro should (and does) principally describe what, why, and how testing is, though not ignore the pro- and anti- positions completely. Your "single line" argument falls down slightly when you realise there is actually other content about opposition, for example: Whether animal research was necessary to achieve these results has been questioned by animal rights groups [13] and other critics of the animal model. [14] and The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about ethical issues and the scientific necessity of using animal models.

While i broadly agree with the principle of what you say above, Localzuk, i do have sympathy with the position Haber forwards. We use two examples in the controversy section that pretty much rely on the ALF for evidence (both of which occured in the US). It does seem very pertinant to me that the ALF is a front for many criminal activities and is considered a terrorist group in the country that these actions occurred. A concise statement that the ALF uses ilegal actions does not seem like an unreasonable request in the context that we are using them as a source of criticism of legal experiements. Rockpocket 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ALF not only uses illegal actions, it directly encourages them. It is proud of them. It encourages ANY attack against animal testing enterprises that doesn't harm animals or people. It specifically encourages illegal theft of animals, and attacks that economically damage animal testing enterprises. --Animalresearcher 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as the one-liner stays (per reasons above), I'm ok for now. Localzuk, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. Haber 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I hereby request discussion on the merits of removing the paragraph beginning "AAALAC accreditation has not guaranteed humane animal care." from the section on regulation of animal testing. This point is superfluous and redundant. AAALAC describes a regulatory accreditation process. There is not a single AAALAC site on the planet that cannot be faulted for one or other violation of AAALAC standards of some sort. The level of compliance depends on the level of enforcement. This paragraph in question does not bear on the presentation of the regulatory process - it constitutes controversy from animal rights advocates. I feel it should be removed, because it is not relevant to the section in which it sits. In addition, it wrongly singles out the University of Florida. Anyone may, with a Freedom of Information Act request, obtain a long list of AAALAC or Animal Welfare Act violations from any major animal research center in the USA. EVERY SINGLE CENTER has a long list of violations, and EVERY SINGLE CENTER responds to those violations and changes practice. Part of the issue is that the enforcement of the AAALAC standard and AWA standards are changing over time, so that something that was quite acceptable five years ago is no longer acceptable.

A similar argument may be made about the paragraph on the eastern branch of the APHIS Animal Welfare Act inspectors. No one would argue that the presence of enforcement means that there are no rules violations. Can you imagine applying this standard to any regulational enforcement? These sections are not relevant to the process of regulation, and should be removed. However, removing cited referenced information should be discussed, first. --Animalresearcher 20:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I should further note that the section on the University of Florida is faulty. The USDA does not inspect or write violations about bird cages or rats - they do not inspect rat or bird facilities. They enforce the Animal Welfare Act, which does not apply to rats, mice, birds, or other non-mammals. Thus there is every reason to believe that section is non verifiable, or at best written in a way that clearly misrepresents what actually occurred in Florida. --Animalresearcher 20:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed that information, as unverifiable. The main issue was that it related USDA inspections to species that the USDA does not inspect. It did cite a Gainesville Sun article, which is not electronically available, nor could I produce a copy elsewhere. The text appeared nearly verbatim in animal rights' activism lobbying material (which in NO WAY disqualifies it), but the same citation-unverifiable problem existed. --Animalresearcher 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The section for discussion is the following

Over 10 times more animals are used by humans for other purposes (pets, agriculture, hunting, pest control) than are used in animal testing, with roughly 130 million pet dogs and cats in the USA, 100 million animals killed by hunting, 150 million large mammals used in agriculture, and hundreds of millions of rats involved in pest control.

(I omitted the references here, they are included in the article).

The reference to pets was omitted, but I re-introduced it. This point contrasts the human use of animals OUTSIDE animal testing, with the human use of animals IN testing. Pets are clearly exploited by their owners. Their owners administer painful stimuli to effect behavioral control. Choke collars are used. Electronic collars are used to control barking, or to enforce boundaries. Each of these infringes on the animals freedoms. There are roughly 135 million pet dogs and cats in the USA. And, 2-3 million of these are euthanized each year for population control.

In contract, a few tens of thousands of dogs and cats are used in the USA in animal testing. Any stimulus which may cause more than momentary pain and suffering for these animals must be specifically enumerated in an animal use protocol. I think the contrast is clear. People should consider which dog has the better life - the one in animal testing, or the pet. The pet has a 2% chance of being euthanized each year due to the actions of its human owners. It may be beaten, diseased, flea-bitten, or malnourished without recourse to its owner. It has a substantial chance of being run over by a motor vehicle each year. In contrast, the dog in animal testing will have some aspects of its life compromised, but it will be clean, well-fed, and disease free (unless the disease is being studied), and any pain and suffering in its life will be controlled by analgesia and anesthesia by law (unless pain is being studied). Given the rather sorry state, on the whole, of the 130 million "pet dogs and cats in the USA, I think it is worth considering whether much fuss should be made about a few tens of thousands being used in testing.

The ethical basis of animal testing is the same ethical basis that underlies all human use of animals. The tradeoff in animal well-being and freedoms that occurs in other walks of life is of paramount importance in evaluating a cost-benefit analysis for animal testing. For these reasons, in our current legal and moral framework, we need to consider how humans use animals OUTSIDE testing, to get a good idea of what should be acceptable INSIDE testing. And pet use is clearly a large animal use OUTSIDE testing. --Animalresearcher 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for pets being an example of animal use comparable to hunting and meat eating? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure you out, AR. Sometimes what you write makes very good sense; at other times you seem very POV. Almost as though you're more than one person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that logically, following from the provided ethical basis of animal testing, the cost-benefit analysis for animal testing MUST be weighed against the entirety of human use of animals. And pets are clearly a large human use of animals, and it is accompanied by quite a lot of pain and suffering for the pets that is unregulated. You may say that pets are not killed or hurt as part of the practice of owning a pet, but that doesn't take away from the fact that 1 in 50 are euthanized each year due to infrastructural problems, or that a similar number are killed by cars each year, and many owners are cruel to their pets with little to no recourse. More pets are killed by cars each year, than are used in animal testing. That is very relevant to considerations of what is acceptable in animal testing. The public largely views the issues surrounding animal testing under a microscope because of expose's from animal rights groups. Following the ethical framework, the actions undertaken in animal testing MUST be evaluated against the human use of animals outside animal testing. And pet ownership is a large part of that. When you realize over 100 million large cattle are turned into hamburgers each year, the use of a few tens of thousands in animal testing seems appropriate - if for no other reason than to improve the livelihood of those in agriculture.

Also, in that particular section, the points are deliberately constructed to be POV. You must tread extremely lightly when you re-write arguments that come from a vantage point that is opposite your own. I would not undertake to re-write any of the arguments in that section arguing against animal testing, although I might check that they are logically sound, verifiable, and referenced. --Animalresearcher 13:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than arguing the point, do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless of any ideas you may have yourself on the matter we still would need a third party source to back up the claim. Otherwise it is original research.

Also, it is possible, although I admit sometimes difficult, to edit from a viewpoint different to your own but a good editor should be able to do this.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on what I am being accused of doing wrong, how this constitutes original research, or why any additional reference is needed. The specific point addresses the number of animals used by humans outside animal testing, compared to the number of animals used by humans as part of animal testing. The numbers in animal testing are already provided in the article. I provided references to the numbers of animals used in agriculture, the number killed in hunting, the number of pets, and a source on rodent pest control. Am I really to believe that whereas I view this to be an argument that supports animal testing, and I am a clear animal testing advocate, others who advocate animal testing do not see it the same way? Is there some viewpoint in which the number of dogs used as pets in the USA has no bearing on the number of dogs used in animal testing? I think it follows directly, logically, from the ethical basis under which testing is allowable. Also, is it not clear that pets are subjected to control by their owners? Do pets somehow not constitute a human use of animals to some people?

Maybe that last point is not as clear to some. But 2% of all pets are euthanized each year in the USA for population control (lack of good homes). A similar number are killed in car accidents. If you work in a veterinary clinic, you see the range of disease, malnourishment, and other poor pet ownership that is tolerated quite well in the current legal and ethical framework. As the use of animals in testing is referenced to other human uses of animals, you have to ask how animals are used outside testing. And this frame of reference is EXACTLY why nearly all veterinarians staunchly support animal testing. It is not even clear, on the whole, whether a pet is treated better than an animal in testing! Now, clearly, a well treated pet is just like a member of the family, and there are plenty of well cared-for pets. But there are just as clearly a substantial fraction that are cared for poorly, and those animals lack any real legislation to protect their interests. --Animalresearcher 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from AR activists we can begin to use a starting point/source for the proposed paragraph about the abysmal life of pets:

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation" -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance." --Ingrid Newkirk, ibid.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic_(Washington D C, PeTA, 1982). p. 15)

Here is a link to an article from the Humane Society related to the practice of "pet hoarding" . Plus there are a lot of other useful resources at the Humane Society website. Nrets 14:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Humane Society of the US has a clear position statement on pets. They believe dogs and cats should not be bred for pet use, and that animal well-being will be advanced by getting rid of pets. I think pets make a very interesting point for consideration wrt animal testing - specifically because of the level of animal pain and suffering that is tolerated and largely unregulated. The benefit from that "pain and suffering" cost is companionship to humans. --Animalresearcher 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, I thought you said Ingrid Newkirk and PETA weren't reliable sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember saying this, but maybe I did. I wouldn't trust any statements about facts that PETA makes on their published material, but in this case, these quotes illustrate the position toward keeping pets of a prominent, and in the minds of many, representative animal rights supporter and advocacy group. Nrets 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point. Is it the case that you editors feel "pet ownership constitutes human use of animals" needs additional referencing? What, specifically in the article text constituted original research that would require referencing? --Animalresearcher 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The implication that keeping animals as pets is an argument for animal testing.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's do a thought experiment. Someone tells you 10,000 dogs are used in the UK in animal testing. They then tell you there are 50,000 dogs as pets, or that there are 50 million dogs as pets. Are you saying that the general public's opinion on animal testing will not change depending ohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_testing&action=edit&section=15n the ratio between the number in testing, and the number as pets? I agree that an animal rights advocate would be unlikely to change his opinion, but these arguments are broader than that. I think it would be easy, following the same logic, to get rid of every single argument on both sides of the fence in that section. --Animalresearcher 16:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AR, for the third time of asking: do you have a source that discusses pet ownership in terms of animal testing i.e. a source that makes the argument you are making? Please review WP:NOR. As for your argument, I can't even follow it. The anti-testing argument is that testing on animals is morally wrong and scientifically wrong-headed. That argument applies whether one animal is being used or one billion; and it applies whether all other animals are being treated like the Queen of England or living lives of misery. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this argument is not specifically directed at animal rights advocates.Similar arguments are made by FB Research here

"This is not to deny that many, many beloved pets go missing. Sadly, over seven million unclaimed dogs and cats are euthanized in animal shelters each year. And wildlife biologists estimate that over one million animals are killed each day by automobiles. " http://www.fbresearch.org/education/PetTheftMyth.htm

But again, if you follow the logical framework of an animal tester, you see these points.

1) humans are 'entitled' to use animals

2) humans are not allowed to cause unnecessary pain and suffering - no suffering beyond that necessary to achieve scientific merit

3) cost-benefit analyses weigh the scientific merit against the pain and suffering

The logical conclusion is that there has to be SOME way to weigh pain and suffering against scientific merit. Now, humans do use animals in multiple other ways, and each of these is also ethically backed by the 'entitlement' argument. So, it follows that the cost-benefit analysis used in animal testing must be in sync with the cost-benefit analysis for other human uses of animals. Each human use of animals restricts the animals' freedoms and rights, although in different ways. So, in deciding whether a given experiment is to be allowable, and on what scale, you need to evaluate the potential merit against the potential harm to the animal using the whole of human uses of animals as a background. Pets are far from an innocuous use of animals, and constitute a major use, and it seems trivializing to exclude them because from your point of view pet use is irrelevant to animal testing. All human use of animals is relevant, and pets are a big one. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's your own argument and not a strong one. By extension, we shouldn't worry about women being raped in the U.S. because of the number of women beaten to death elsewhere in the world; we shouldn't worry about children being badly educated because, heck, there are kids that are starving. It's a really bad argument. But regardless, if a reliable source has made it, we can include it; if not, then not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with SV here, the anti-testing argument is regardless of how many animals are used for other purposes and therefore a lengthy aside on AR position towards pets is a little beside the poinnt. However, there is some value in keeping a short statement that says that animal testing comprises only a small percentage off all animals used, just to keep things in perspective. These figures are referenced and do not add any original research. Another thing to consider, is writing a section in the Animal rights article about the positions of various animal rights activists toward pets and discussed above. It is more relevant to that article than to this one. Nrets 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point you are missing seems to be that all of that is original research. It is taking a set of already published facts and drawing unpublished, unreferenced and unverifiable conclusions from the. The section is regarding what arguments are used to counter the anti-testing lobby, and those arguments are all common, published and verifiable whereas this is not.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AR, if Nrets and I are agreeing, you know you're beaten. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Animal Liberation Front has been involved in additional illegal incidents[82], and is considered a terrorist group by the United States Government.

It is currently stuck at the end of a block of text without any context. As I have said before it doesn't really need to be here as the article on the ALF already covers it. How can we improve this?-Localzuk^(talk) 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually happy with it the way I originally wrote it (which included the terrorist group link because it was in one of the cited references, but did not include the incident report). The incident itself is not really about the ALF. I agree that as written now it sort of stands out. I created a WIKI entry for FBResearch, and it includes a reference to their incident report. That info could alternately be merged into a separate subsection under controversy if someone wanted to expand on the incident report. --Animalresearcher 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we pay attention to the quality of the writing, please? Sticking sentences in willy-nilly makes us all look bad. The previous sentence says the ALF left a Molotov cocktail on someone's doorstep. To then add that they have sometimes been involved in illegal activity is silly; and to add the terrorist thing POV and irrelevant to this article. What earthly difference does it make to the subject of animal testing that the FBI has called the ALF a terrorist threat? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out previously, the labelling of the ALF as a terrorist group was included in one of the referenced articles on the UCLA incident. It is not the editor of the article that introduced that claim for effect, it came from the reference. As for cleaning up poor writing without removing referenced verifiable material, have at it! --Animalresearcher 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree it could be written better, but the "earthly difference" it makes is, in my opinion, as follows: If a peaceful, respectible, animal rights/welfare group makes claims about alleged animal abuse though legal channels then there is a level of credibility associated with that that is lacking somewhat when the group that makes the claims are little more than violent (depending on your definition of the word), terrorists (depending on your definition of the word). If we are using the ALF as a source of information on US animal testing (specifically about Britches) then i think it is highly relevent that the official opinion of the ALF is that is a terrorist threat, especially when the source makes that very connection. Rockpocket 07:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RP, the claim that the ALF are little more than violent terrorists is unfair. Much of what the ALF does is remove animals from laboratories and other arguably bad situations. You may regard that as theft, or you may regard it as rescue, but it's not terrorism by any standard.

We used the ALF as a source on Britches, but not a sole source. Much of the information about Britches came from the veterinarian who examined him; other material came from PETA. Really the only thing from the ALF activists were the photographs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While i take your point about animal "rescues", we both know that is not the limit of the ALF's actions. According to the article, the information came from an "ALF veterinarian who examined the monkey after the raid and wrote a report". Personally, i give little credibility to the opinion, ethics or honesty of any professional that associates themselves with a movement/group/front that threatens the life of "an elderly woman unrelated to [a] university" by placing an explosive device on her porch. That is well within the scope of terrorism by most standards, i would propose.

The ALF is nothing more than a convenient front for the same group of people who claim that they only use legal means, to tag on their more unsavoury actions, thereby keeping their more mainstream face clean to raise money. I was told this personally, and shown a large body of evidence to prove it, by the head of the British National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit. Its no different in practice than how organised crime operates a legal business as a front for their illegal actions. Of course, everyone in the movement denies this and there are probably plenty of people who are naive enough to actually believe it. The rest are just maintaining the charade. Since this isn't going to change anytime sooon, then i say its important that we call a spade a spade. Let those people hide behind their "front" but lets also make it very clear what sort of actions that "front" participates in (in the UCLA case, clearly acts aimed at causing terror) and let the reader decide for themseleves whether it is a credible "front" that provides credible information. Rockpocket 20:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That sort of speaks to why ALF would take the actions they do. I am not a believer in true altruism, there is always a selfish interest. What possible benefit is there for ALF activists in their actions. They commit crimes, anonymously, arguably to benefit animals. This is self-destructive behavior unless there is an unseen benefit - there is no way in which the ALF activists' lives can improve through this sort of activism. Ultimately no one will continue to take such actions for long or else they will be regarded by their peers as delusional. Then you look at the money....millions are donated yearly to the HSUS and BUAV and PETA. It was no mistake that PETA bailed out Rodney Coronado. The money is hidden and laundered, but real. And in some cases above-board - Pacelle makes over $150k/year for running HSUS. Jerry Vlasak lives in a multimillion dollar mansion in the Malibu hills among movie stars - a place unaffordable to a trauma surgeon. The Sea Shepherd protests are laughable except that they are a huge donation-earner for the participants. One could make a strong argument that it is all about the money, and that people like Vlasak and Newkirk are using college kids as sacrificial lambs to maintain their rich and elite lifestyles. As I've said repeatedly, I am all for open debate on animal research, costs, and benefits, but I am not for law-breaking. When and if animal research becomes against the law, I will not break the law to continue. I will continue to work in legal medical research, as I always have, with a goal of making human society a better place under existing law. The same is distinctly not true of most animal rights groups, which intentionally break the law so those at the top can get rich. So when I see people argue that ALF is not a true group, and that these actions represent civil disobedience from truly concerned citizens, I find it naive to say the least. It is about power and money for those at the top, the same as Al Qaeda, it is just a different song and dance in a different culture. --Animalresearcher 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole article feels very anti. There is little or no mention of the fact it is absolutly nessecary for medical research, and no mention of the illigal tactics used by animal rights groups to attempt to get thier way. 130.246.132.26 14:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you are a little misguided in your idea that the article is very anti. The article is about animal testing, not about animal rights activism. If you want to look into that, look at the relevant articles linked in the template. Also, there is no definitive claim that 'animal testing is absolutely necessary'. This is the opinion of various people and organisations, and testing is required by law in the UK, USA and other countries, but this does not mean it is absolutely necessary. Everything in the article is well sourced and as such it is not POV.

Personally, I see the article as being the opposite - too pro. So it depends on which side you read it from really. I propose that the tag be removed as your claims seem unfounded and based on personal opinion of animal testing rather than any scientific or verifiable facts.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to hear some "scientifically verifiable facts" that suggest many major medical advances could have been done without animal research. The claim that animal research is beneficial stems from the fact that, animal research leads to medical discoveries, which is a FACTm and is supported by data rather than the opinion of Scientist A or Organization B, as you claim it to be. I've asked for this before: What I'm looking for is a reference that, in the absence of any actual real-life examples since you claim there aren't any because testing is required by law (although it not always has), would state a reasonable alternative path by which one could develop a polio vaccine or open heart surgery, without first using animal experiments. It seems like this fallacy argument keeps getting thrown about without offering a logical, real alternative. Nrets 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that just shows that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. I do not have to prove that. All I have to do, to counter any claims that 'testing is required', is say that there are X scientists who say the opposite. That is how our verifiability policy works and as such demanding that I show you sources to prove that some medical achievement could be done without testing is completely pointless. We can also only write things like 'X says that this achievement is due to animal testing' or 'Animal testing was used to achieve X', we cannot say 'X is an achievement as a result of animal testing' because there is no evidence to prove that it couldn't be done any other way.

Anyway, what this has to do with my comment above, I do not know. Wikipedia presents a summary based on verifiable information. That is what this article is doing. It does not violate WP:NPOV regardless of your viewpoint.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What a strange and misleading comment, LZ. We most certainly could say 'X is an achievement as a result of animal testing', if X = (for example) 'The first successful birth of a mammal after nuclear transfer...', or 'Pavlov's proof of classical conditioning in dogs..." Those are simple statements of historical fact (and are paraphrases of content that is actually already in the article). What, i think you mean, is one shouldn't imply that: 'X is an achievement that required animal testing'. Rockpocket 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Rockpocket, you are obviously much more articulate than me. That is exactly what I meant.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LZ, I can cite my uncle Bob believes "such and such" and wrote this in some newspaper article, and according you this is good enough for WP. Sources should be evaluated not just for the fact that they support your POV, but for how reliable they are and how much sense they make. Otherwise I can make some incredibly racist statement, backed by some citation to a neo-nazi website, and claim it as NPOV. But that's not my point, I am genuinely curious and would like to see a scientifically sound argument that states a logical way many of these medical advances could have otherwise been achieved. It is easy to criticize something, but not as easy to provide alternatives. I'm asking you, Localzuk, who are well versed in the AR literature and clearly care about the subject, to help me understand your point of view so that we can work together better in the future. I never stated that any policies were violated nor do I misunderstand the purpose of WP. Nrets 02:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"The article is about animal testing, not about animal rights activism". Now this is something we can agree on. Let's get rid of the "Animal liberation movement" box, and the controversy section while we're at it. Why should this article single out individual businesses for the purpose of making controversy? Whaling, Logging, Tobacco industry, Petroleum industry - no other controversial industry takes it on the chin in WP like Animal testing. Haber 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Haber, please stop removing material and editing disruptively. The controversy section is not going to be removed. It's a controversial subject; to have no section with examples would be absurd. As for the templates, there are two: one with the animal rights position in the alternatives section, and another higher up with the animal testing position. This article is actually not at all anti-testing. Read the lead section, which in fact veers toward being pro-testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your logic in further detail. What I'm hearing is: immediate revert, call my changes absurd, say the article is pro-testing. Haber 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Haber, please don't misinterpret what I said. I mean that the article talks about Animal testing - not about the methods used by those that oppose it. Therefore, the article should cover animal testing from a 'scientific' point of view, from a 'pro-testing' pov and also from an 'anti-testing' point of view. It isn't about 'taking it on the chin', it is about covering all relevant topics of the article. We do that here, and stuff about activist methods is covered elsewhere. Do not delete the section again.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this your position?

Animal testing - relevant topic;

Controversy surrounding animal testing - relevant topic;

Methods used to incite controversy surrounding animal testing - irrelevant topic.

Haber 14:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A slight over simplification there. The original poster stated that there was no mention of 'illigal tactics used by animal rights groups to attempt to get thier way'. My position is that that is not within the scope of this article. It is not a POV thing, it is purely a editorial view.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't think a short statement and link to the FBR incident report is relevant at the end of the controversy section? After all, the entire section mostly lists one illegal activity after another conducted in the name of animal rights. A summary and link to a compilation of that type of illegal activity seems very relevant to the controversy section in my editorial view.--Animalresearcher 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In my editorial view, the existence of the controversy section only serves the interests of animal rights activists. If it stays, then I'm going to insist that we give readers a deeper understanding of events. Wikipedia should not take sides by publicizing activist activities, printing allegations, and obscuring information about their methods that might lead reasonable, law-abiding people to disbelieve or oppose them. Haber 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As currently stated

The introduction to this article should be about animal testing, not the controversy surrounding animal testing. Image:AnimaltestingMonkeyCovance2.jpg was created and distributed with the intent to incite controversy. I would like to replace it with Image:Laika.jpg, a photograph of Laika, the first animal in space and possibly the most famous laboratory animal ever. Comments? Haber 1--Animalresearcher 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)4:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I never liked the Covance monkey picture, mainly because it was a shaved monkey with no evidence of animal testing. Like a bad fraternity prank. I've been advocating for some time to use one of the NASA primates instead, Laika is great by me, it is a CLEAR example of animal testing, and a decent image. --Animalresearcher 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

AR, the current image isn't liked by people who support animal testing for obvious reasons, but it was taken inside a lab and not by the lab owners. I deliberately chose one that didn't show an animal actually undergoing a procedure, which arguably would be more appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The current image is from a biased, unverifiable source and not representative of the article topic. --JWSchmidt 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

All the sources in this area are biased, but the image is known to be accurate, and others have said on this page that it's well within what can be expected in labs that do relevant work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the current image has a free licence, whereas the one Haber wants to insert doesn't. We're not supposed to replace freely licensed images with fair-use ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I've working with laboratory primates, mainly Rhesus monkeys, for close to two decades, and I have NEVER shaved a monkey from head to toe like that. Similar to the effect you might get if you shaved your pet dog, the animal LOOKS pathetic while not actually caring all that much. In as much as I've worked at multiple primate centers in the USA, I cannot say that I find that animal picture AT ALL representative of lab research primates. On the other hand, NASA offers a wide range of public domain primate pictures that I have REPEATEDLY suggested are representative, including some that show animals undergoing operations, and all of these are public domain. --Animalresearcher 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Enos the space chimp http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/MERUNMAN/10073456.jpg obviously sedated and under NASA control prior to being sent into space. The image is public domain, shows an APE - which is the most controversial animal testing species, and shows it being instrumented for human purposes, clear evidence of exploitation that the animal rights lobby abhors. why not use this image? Again, the Covance image has no indication whatsoever of any testing. This image does! --Animalresearcher 01:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to go chimp, I prefer this picture of Ham- Image:Ham the chimp.jpg. It's at a better angle and shows the animal in a more dignified manner. However I really don't think any Soviets are going to complain about the Laika image. SV is just trying to invent a problem with this licensing business. Haber 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take care in your reversion wars, SV, not to back out changes as collateral damage to whatever point you are contesting. --Animalresearcher 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, AR. In order to stop the reverting, how about we try the image you suggested? You said it was public domain, so it would be okay to replace the current free-license one with a PD one. Would that work for everyone? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you've suggested it above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added Animalresearcher's suggestion as the main image; moved the previous image to the primate section; and added Laika to the dog section. Haber, you said there is a public domain version of the dog image available, so could you please look into that further? What I said earlier about not being allowed to use fair use when freely licensed ones are available is correct, and the Foundation is getting increasingly strict about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a nice compromise. Such a historically important animal experiment is a fitting illustration, its not sensationalised and it deals with primates (which is a area of public concern). Nice work, people. Rockpocket 06:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RP, and thanks to AR for the suggestion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Applause, applause. --Animalresearcher 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the picture of the monkey (That was at the top of the page) could maybe do with some short explaination of why it is in that position (if this is availiable) - might make it look a little less sensationalist and shocking (and therefore keep peoples views in perspective) (alihaig) 130.246.132.26 16:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be useful/appropriate to add to the list of arguements in favor of animal testing that, given the level of abuse and criticism faced by animal scientists, many/all would not carry out the tests if they felt that they were unnessecary? Also in the arguments against testing list, it is mentioned that in some cases results seen in animals are different from those seen in humans. However, if drugs were not tested on animals then the number of cases where human testing has serious side effects would be greatly increased. The whole point of animal testing is that it is just one stage in a long list of tests that must be carried out between the initial idea, to a safe drug being released to the public. - (alihaig) 130.246.132.26 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Cited, referenced, verifiable, relevant additions to these areas are welcome. Any addition may be challenged by those who frequently edit the page on any of those criteria. Unverifiable additions are removed aggressively, unreferenced additions will be at a minimum tagged, and then removed. But if they are referenced, verifiably, and relevant they will be a welcome addition to the page. --Animalresearcher 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to change the article name from "Animal testing" to "Animal research". HSUS, gov't, and pro groups tend to use the term more. PETA likes "Animal Testing". Google picks Research 125,000,000 to Testing 11,000,000. Comments? Haber 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you do the search as a term, ie. with the quotes, you get a more accurate result of: Animal Research: 1570000, compared with Animal Testing: 1720000. However, I do not think the page should be moved for a different reason. The term 'Animal Research' is also used to cover 'research involving animals in any form', so watching them in the wild would be covered, etc... Animal testing is specific to the subject matter - testing on animals.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...but based on the research types mentioned in the article, "Pure Research" would include research of animals in the wild. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of preparing a small section to add to that paragraph regarding behavioral studies of animals in the wild and in refuges. Nrets 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think animal testing does not accurately convey all the things covered in the page. I agree animal research is too broad. The consensus from the British and American lawmakers is "animal experimentation", which I find most accurate and not overly broad. I've never thought the term "testing" was correct, it conveys too much an image of toxicology studies (which are of course a broad use of the primates, but would not cover, for example, dissecting frogs in high school biology). --Animalresearcher 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes for me too I think of toxicology studies. AR, I don't see the lawmaker consensus you're talking about when looking at the AWA, 1985 amendment, or Principles. If wildlife behavioral studies can't be included here, then will they need a new article? Haber 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-did indenting, don't sue me ;) The British lawmakers refer to "animal testing and experimentation", the Americans refer to "animal experimentation and research". If wildlife studies are also being added in, it would warrant calling the page animal research in my mind. Certainly in America the term "animal research" is used far far more often than "testing" - to the point of the term sounding strange when I saw it on wikipedia. --Animalresearcher 14:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We certainly should not add any more information to the scope of this article as it is far too large as it is. Instead we should be looking at ways of splitting the page to make it more compliant with WP:SIZE. If we look at the google results, it would indicate that Animal Testing is bar far the most commonly used term, followed by Animal Research, followed by Animal Experimentation. However the research title would widen the scope to far and make the article to large. The experimentation one is out of the question simply because it is not as commonly used. Remember, the title should be the most commonly used term amongst everyone, not just lawmakers. That includes normal civilians too. And it seems to me that Animal Testing is the most common one so we should leave it as it is.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Most common in Britain. Scarcely used at all in the USA. There has to be some way to find a term reasonably commonly used on both sides of the pond. --Animalresearcher 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm basing my 'most commonly used' on the google results. See these googlefights: .-Localzuk^(talk) 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That speaks to the commonality of the use of those terms. But, as already discussed, "animal testing" does not cover everything on the page, not even everything regulated by the Animal Welfare Act. I could, for example implant a sleep monitoring device with no side effects for a monkey, and monitor its sleep stages, and this would not be testing in any sense of the word, but it would advance science. I mean, "animal rights" gets even more hits than animal testing, does that mean we should re-name the page "animal rights"? --Animalresearcher 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AR, I admire your patience, but just change your name to AT and listen to PETA. Haber 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but think that it makes the lead to long. We would need to compact it a bit I think - in particular the first paragraph.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have come up with an intro that's even drier than the existing intro. One nitpick: the prevention vs. treatment criticism is very weak. Vaccines are a product of animal research. Non-infectious diseases are also possible to prevent if they are understood. In addition, just because diseases can be prevented doesn't mean that treating them is unimportant. Haber 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another subtle rewrite:

The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about ethical issues and the scientific necessity of using animal models. The US Congress, after protracted hearings from proponents of both animal rights and biomedical research, added the following statement into the Animal Welfare Act:"the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals". Opponents of animal testing contest these views, preferring to believe that improvements in life expectancy and medical treatment are largely due to human testing, improvements in technology, and that it is "impossible to say where we would be if we had declined to experiment on animals because throughout medical history, very few resources have been devoted to non-animal research methods."^[5]. Other critics note that in regards to medical health "the most significant improvements have been due to the prevention of disease and not to its treatment"^[13].

The ethics of using animal models is another point of contention. One moral basis for a pro-testing position was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002, which argues that humans are unique and morally entitled to use animals as food, for work, and for experimentation, provided that animal welfare principles are upheld, and cost-benefit analyses demonstrate an expected improvement in society that outweighs pain and suffering of the animals.^[9] This implies that human pain and suffering is prioritized over animal pain and suffering^[14]. Opponents of animal research argue multiple ethical lines. One argument is that consideration of pain and suffering for animals should be legally equivalent to the considerations for humans^[15]. Another viewpoint is that rights stem from possession of certain cognitive abilities, and that as science increasingly demonstrates animals have these capabilities, law should protect these rights of animals^[16].

Comments ?? --Animalresearcher 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the lead as it is, except that we must add an anti-testing paragraph. The problem with the above is that parts of it don't seem to say much e.g. Congress added "the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education ..." It doesn't mean anything. We all know it's "instrumental." The question is: "Is it necessary?" SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The current two paragraphs have one paragraph on the utility of animal research, and a second on ethics. Both the US Congress, and the House of Lords, have made DIRECT statements about both of these issues AFTER hearing from all sides on the issue. I felt it of far broader interest to point out that substantial public hearings have resulted in the statements I cited in the proposed two paragraphs. Of course these are still disputed by anti-testing groups, and I also included the most relevant criticisms. Representative governments reached a consensus, largely the same consensus on these issues, and I thought that was a better intro than the current intro, which reads more like a smattering of pro-testing advocacy weakened by editing of the specific quotes by anti-testing editing. Let all points of view be heard! --Animalresearcher 14:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but the current intro is almost entirely pro-testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You certainly cannot blame me for that, my proposed paragraphs are much more balanced. If you insist on reverting to the text that you view as almost entirely pro-testing, that is your choice. --Animalresearcher 15:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the intro have to be controversial at all? I'm looking at Abortion and it seems to me like it would be a good model for the format of this article. Haber 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, as far as I can tell, the only link to YouTube is this one of the narcoleptic dog. It appears to be from a scholarly source, perhaps a training video. It is not a sole source for the info it is attached to, so I guess removal is advisable. Rockpocket 09:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Great video. Reminds me of my dog. Reminds me of me, come to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This page suffers from some poor writing, which has come about as a result of editors prioritizing POV over the quality of the writing. For example, in the lead:

"The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American organization that 'promot[es] public understanding and support for humane and responsible animal research' [says]..."

The Foundation is a lobby group, and we should be calling it that, for reasons of good writing and accuracy. We use the term "animal rights group." We don't say: "A group dedicated to promoting public understanding of the terrible abuses inflicted on animals ..."

I'm therefore making a plea for straightforward language over POV contortions. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I broadly agree, SV. I guess such tortuous explanations come from being the 'acceptable' middle ground between alternating descriptions from either POV. I'm not adverse to calling lobby groups 'lobby groups', but I feel the term implies a mainly political sphere of influence, while much of the work done by groups on both sides is in the area of public perception. I like the term "pro-research groups", though concede that the possible inference that anyone in opposition is therefore 'anti-research' is unfair. So perhaps "pro-testing" would be a better term (my long held concerns that "testing" is a poor blanket description for animal experimentation not withstanding).

In contrast, I think "animal rights group" is fine, but "animal welfare group" has the same problems as "pro-research": being pro-animal experimentation does not make you anti-welfare by default. If we could come up with some consensus for how to describe such groups (much like is the case for "direct action"), then perhaps we could start calling a spade, "a spade". Rockpocket 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say we should describe them in the way reliable third parties describe them, which in the case of AR groups is "animal rights groups" (or as Animal researcher would prefer — "terrorists" ;-)), and in the case of groups like the Foundation, I would say they're mostly called lobby groups. The only reason they want to persuade the public is that they need public support to persuade government. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"The only reason they want to persuade the public is that they need public support to persuade government." And this assertion is based on what? Your opinion? I agree with RP that we should keep the acceptable middle ground. Nrets 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The FBR or RDS clearly do lobby government as part of their diverse pro-research activities. These also include data analysis regarding illegal direct action and public education/propaganda. Thus we could refer to them as "lobby groups", but we would not necessarily be doing justice to the scope of their organisations.

Similarly, we could describe PETA or BUAV as "lobby groups". Both clearly do lobby at their own admission ^[1,2,3] and could equally be described wanting to persuade the public because they need public support to persuade government. . So the point is, I feel, that we should strive to best describe the motive of groups on both side in their entirety. To do that, we should boil it down to their principle position, and this is pro-animal rights and pro-animal testing. The exception I'm willing to accept is that of the CCF, which clearly states its primary position as anti-animal-rights-group group (and is pro- very little). Rockpocket 06:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "PETA is actively pressuring world governments ... to take steps to reduce their reliance on animal testing"

2. "PETA lobbies companies and government agencies to provide funding for research and development"

3. "BUAV lobbies for acceptance of vital amendments to eliminate animal testing"

FBR is a biomedical research advocacy group. They specifically advocate for the humane use of animals in biomedical research. Lobbying is a part of what they do, but it is not all of what they do. Such a group cannot be opposed to animal welfare...there is not a single anti-welfare group in the world, in that no group on either side of the fence believes in unnecessary cruelty to animals. On the anti-testing side, groups define themselves differently. Some are anti-testing advocacy groups, like BUAV. Some are animal rights advocacy groups. Irrespecitve of their philosophical leanings, some of them engage in patterns of intimidation intended to instill fear in those they oppose. SHAC, ALF, Primate Freedom, are good examples of this. Those who use violence or intimidation in pursuit of their political goals are, according to my dictionary, terrorists. SHAC has used both violence and death threats to pursue their goals. I recognize Wikipedia has a policy on the use of the term terrorism, and use it accordingly in WIKI articles. --Animalresearcher 14:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

FBR is a lobby group. No one said it was specifically anti-welfare, but if you're lobbying for funds to drill holes in monkey's heads and fiddle with their brains, to say that you're pro-welfare is to misunderstand the term somewhat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely OR on your part, SV, animal welfare principles related to unnecessary pain and suffering, and the federal government has to agree with us on what is necessary before we can proceed..--Animalresearcher 15:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling somewhat constructive...let's have a stab at that sentence:

"The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American organization that 'promot[es] public understanding and support for humane and responsible animal research' [says]..."

"The Foundation for Biomedical Research, a group advocating for humane animal use in biomedical research"

The antagonism from both sides of the fence has forced both sides to increasingly use quotations to avoid being labelled as POV, and that has definitely hurt the writing. However, attempts to correct it in the intro, even after substantial discussion and agreement on the talk page, STILL result in reverting. --Animalresearcher 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation doesn't advocate humane use specifically; they're advocates for animal testing, period. Have they condemned any testing organization found to have been abusive or in violation of any legislation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about "The Foundation for Biomedical Research, a group advocating responsible animal use in biomedical research". They make a point of stressing the word "responsible" and I think we can use it to mean they support the use of animals within a legal and ethical code. Rockpocket 08:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to come up with a similar description for animal rights groups: groups advocating avoidance of suffering in biomedical research? Come on, RP, you know they're a lobby group. Call a spade a spade. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are falling into the trap of calling any group that is pro-establishment a "lobby" group and any group that is anti-establishment an "activist" group. To be NPOV about it, we should catagorise them on their actions, not their opinion relative to the status quo. As I demonstrated above, BUAV and PETA both self identify as lobbyists (among their other goals). The FBR self identifies as an educational resource and information provider (among its other goals). These groups are two sides of the same coin and thus I can't see any reason one should be called a lobby group when the other is an "activist" group. I'm not being facetious here either, i genuinely can't see the difference. Rockpocket 08:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And again, you'd have to show that they had ever condemned "irresponsible" use. It appears that they advocate animal testing, period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your argument is logically flawed, SV. Almost all pro-groups advocate "humane" and "responsible" use (because they approve the use of ethical committees and legal frameworks for guiding experimentation. Thus the "humane" and "responsible" part of the experimentation is the part that aims to minimise suffering while achieving the goal). Also, because a group doesn't specifically condemn something, doesn't mean they can't advocate the opposite. For example, we describe the ALF self identifying as "non-violent", yet we note they refuse to condemn violent acts. Using your rationale above, we could argue 'the ALF doesn't advocate "non violence" acts'. You know that argument would not stand up in relation to the ALF, so why should it here? Rockpocket 08:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right, so if almost all (well, in fact, all) groups who advocate it advocate responsible and humane testing, there's no need to add those terms. They are fluff terms. The fact is that this is a lobby group. It lobbies for money and political/legislative support for the animal testing industry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Heheh. Fair point, i'll give you that. So - seeing as they are not exclusively a lobby group - how about "The Foundation for Biomedical Research, a group advocating animal use in biomedical research"? Rockpocket 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What do they do apart from lobbying (and don't say public education because that's part of the lobbying). Do they acutally do anything else? And do they only advocate animal use in biomedical research, or do they also advocate it for testing e.g. weedkiller. And if that counts as biomedical research for them, they are simply advocating animal testing, period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the objection to calling animal rights groups, animal rights groups, and the Foundation, a lobby group? They are entirely accurate descriptions. Why must the pro-testing side always distort words to make things sound better than they are? It starts to look as though you believe your position is not that strong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In a sense, it's hilarious because AR, for example, does the opposite elsewhere. At PETA, he's currently arguing against saying PETA euthanizes animals. No, no, he insists, they KILL animals. Fair enough. But elsewhere, there are procedures, not experiments; people are aspirating or surgically excising monkey's brains, not sucking or cutting them out; and organizations are advocating humane and responsible research, not lobbying on behalf of the animal testing industry.

It's the kind of thing I had hoped our WikiProject would help put an end to. :-( SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In one specific case, calling it euthanasia is inappropriate and inconsistent with multiple major news sources on the topic. In the case of what PETA does when practicing veterinarians perform the euthanasia at their shelter, it is different. Unlike many here, I've euthanized dozens of animals for a wide variety of reasons, and it is something I grapple with in ethics and morals on a daily basis. With respect to surgical terms, well, I am a surgeon, and I view the constant attempts by animal rights groups to use the most pejorative terms possible to describe my actions, and those of others, extremely POV. The techniques we use are NO DIFFERENT when we cut out, or suck out, a section of the brain than when a neurosurgeon does it to an epilepsy patient. You will never see a neurosurgical aspiration referred to as "sucking out the brain", even if that is also an accurate description. Why does the terminology suddenly become pejorative when describing animal experiments that perform the same physical tasks using the same methodologies? Extremely POV terminology becomes apparent when you hold the opposite POV...like the use of the term vivisection. It is clearly part of the agenda of animal rights organizations to make the public think of everything we do as nothing more than vivisection, but the word is only used on one side of the fence. It is a strongly POV and pejorative term (mainly because it implies the experiment has no true purpose). With respect to FBR and PETA and BUAV and RDS, I view them all relatively similarly...they are ALL industries in and of themselves. Except, if PETA and BUAV type organizations did not exist, RDS and FBR would not exist - they are reactionary. They do not exist to promote the industry, AT ALL, it is promoted plainly and simply by advances in society. FBR and RDS exist merely to dampen the impact of PETA and BUAV. With respect to the animal research industry, it is a great investment. By most accountings of improvements in health care, the return on investment is phenomenal. It is absolutely not something that exists just to promote itself, and there are dozens and dozens of clear examples on that, some of which are already in the article.--Animalresearcher 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The major diff between the animal and epilepsy surgery is you're not doing it for the animal's benefit. It's not a medical procedure intended to help the animal. Why use medical terms for it? It's not that "cutting" is the most negative term possible. It's an ordinary term, but people who engage in this work often don't like to use ordinary terms. Hence, euthanasia, not killing. The RDS existed before PETA did, by the way, and possibly before BUAV did. You can't say what the "return on investment" is because there are far, far too many variables. You use animals to test a new drug for asthma. It works and people with asthma are happier. But the drug also weakens their hearts. As a result, their hearts give out earlier than they would have without the drug, other things being equal, although they might have died from an asthma attack without the drug. It's all unknowable, AR, and there's no point in pretending otherwise. For scientists, you all become remarkably unscientific when it comes to these discussions. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say what the return on investment is, exactly, but I know that policymakers in our nation's capital study the problem, convene panels of experts on it, and they increase the budget for animal research at a rate far exceeding our economic growth over the last 25 years. I know that every professional medical or scientific organization supports animal research as an essential component of advancing science and/or medicine. I know that panels of elite scientists and doctors come to the same conclusion. I know that the representative bodies of the USA and Britain have convened their own study groups and made official statements in support of animal research. To say it is "unknowable" uses the same extremely POV pedantic point used to make statements like Nicotine is not addictive, and We cannot be certain of man's contribution to global warming. In matters in which science and policy are intertwined, we rely on the best estimates of the most informed citizens on the topic - the ones who represent doctors and scientists because of their personal achievements in medicine and science. And among those types of expert groups, it has been unanimous for decades. And yet there are no less than THREE wikipedia editors who staunchly edit with a strong anti-animal-testing POV in direct conflict with the broad consensus of experts in the area. They write revisionist history on the Silver Spring Monkeys. They systematically use maximally pejorative words to describe every aspect of animal testing. And they staunchly oppose any and all attempts at balance in POV. I am not saying my edits are perfect, but they fly in the face of the radical POV viewpoints of editors holding a stranglehold on editing topics relating to animal testing. A perfect example are the two attempts at re-writing the obviously flawed intro in the last week, neither of which took a strong POV stance on the topic relative to the current intro, both of which you personally backed out without discussion, one of which you backed out AFTER discussion. --Animalresearcher 10:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on what, SV is their support exclusive of the "animal testing industry"? Much of animal research does not take place at industrial, for-profit settings. In fact almost all of NIH-supported research is doen at academic institutions and hospitals. Therefore to imply that this foundation is a lobby group for industry is ridiculous and POV. Nrets 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, most of the research conducted in universities or anywhere else is commercial i.e. applied. Even when it isn't, all animal testing involves the purchase of expensive equipment. Add to that the research grants that are dependent on it. It is an industry and a highly profitable one, which is the only reason governments support it, and the reason groups are set up to lobby for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some news articles that refer to the 'animal testing industry' or 'animal research industry', the first states 'animal testing is big business' (interviews) . Also, in both the UK and USA there are now laws that forbid 'causing economic damage' to any animal research organisation - indicating that it is a business.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said there is no animal testing industry, what I said was that much of biomedical research is by no means commercial in nature. As far as the laws go, you can cause 'economic damage' to a University by blowing up their animal care facility. This does not mean it is a business. What determines if something is a business is whther it is classified as a for-profit or non-profit organization, and, in the US most major universities have non-profit status. Nrets 20:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, can you find me a few examples of applied research involving animal testing (not just one, because I daresay one would be easy to find) that are not commercial projects?

Practically the entire pharmaceutical industry depends on animal testing. Labs and their staff depend on it for their existence. The breeders, the trappers, the equipment manufacturers, drug manufacturers, university depts wanting grants from govts, charities, companies, research institutions. It's an enormous industry. Why do you suppose govts protect it the way they do? Out of the goodness of their hearts? ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's take a look at the current issues of 'Science' and 'Nature' and look at the articles that used animal research:

In Science: The Genome of the Sea Urchin 'Strongylocentrotus purpuratus' - scientists cloned the genome of the sea urchin. Sea urchins are an excellent model for how cells develop and differentiate. This will allow us to better understand developmental processes in all animals, particularily because many of the sea urchin's genes and how they are regulated are conserved in vertebrates. I'm not sure who's making money on this one.

In Nature: Human immunodeficiency viruses: SIV infection in wild gorillas - viruses resembling HIV-1 group O are present in wild-living gorillas, providing a possible source of one of the original HIV infections in humans. Not a money maker.

In Nature: Retinal repair by transplantation of photoreceptor precursors - an experiment in mice shows that adult retina can incorporate new photoreceptor cells if they come from a specific stage in development. Again, this has future medical aplications to core people suffering from photoreceptor degeneration, a leading cause of blindness in older people. This was funded by NIH, The Foundation Fighting Blindness and Research to Prevent Blindness. I don't see anyone making money any time soon from this one. Certainly not the people funding/performing the research (unless they have a patent).

In Nature: A functional RNAi screen for regulators of receptor tyrosine kinase and ERK signalling - here they used a novel screening system based on Drosophila cells to identify regulators of a specific biochemical pathway. This type of high-throuput screening is useful to identify novel drugs that act on specific pathways. This was funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, originally started by Howard Hughes as a tax shelter, but now it strictly is there to support research, provides huge amounts of funding and (I think) is non-profit.

In Science (last week): Transgenic Mice with a Reduced Core Body Temperature Have an Increased Life Span- Funded by Harold Dorris Neurological Research Institute, The Ellison Medical Foundation, and NIH. Maybe this one can benefit the ice cream industry and the Icelandic tourism board. :)

In none of the examples, do the authors express competing financial interests, and I find it hard to believe how they could immediately benefit financially from any of these studies. While in some cases the authors may ultimately receive some money if they happen to patent a procedure discovered during the course of the research, I find it hard to believe that that is their primary motivation. As I said before, there are easier ways to get rich. Nrets 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, how about research using thalidomide in animal models of multiple myeloma? --Coroebus 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Commercial =/= applied. You may believe that the only reason governments support animal research is because it makes money (although there is a certain circularity in that, it only makes money because governments require testing of drugs), but you surely have to concede that there are a large number of people (scientists, doctors, politicians) that sincerely believe animal research is of benefit to human health? --Coroebus 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know there are people who say they believe it, but whether they really do or not is impossible to know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible for me to know that you exist, but I'm pretty sure you do. So you really don't believe that there are any sincere pro-animal research people with an altruistic motives? I think that makes you the most extreme person I've ever come across on this issue. --Coroebus 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how research is done. I'm not sure where you get the notion that most research in universities is commercial. The government does not support health-related research by giving out grants to to benefit scientific equiment manufacturers, if anything it supports this research to ultimately cut health-care costs by more efficiently treating and diagnosing disease. Ask most researchers in universities and I think very few will say that they are in it for the money. This is laughable, if I wanted to become rich I would certainly not be doing science! Of all my colleagues in my department I can only think of one who has profited financially from his research, and that was from research on humans (although the original experiments were in animals). As far as the big grants go, if you ask most people where the money goes, its not to support expensive equimpent purchases, but rather most of it goes to providing people's salaries who work in the lab and for paying for animal care. So if anything, a hughe chunk of these goverment grants actually goes to making sure animals are well loked after. So while you may view research from a cynical point of view (eg. the medico-industrial complex), this is all that it is, it is your point of view. Nrets 17:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. No one is saying that the lowly researchers get rich. It's usually the way with multi-million dollar industries that the people at the bottom get nothing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I would say that I'm the "lowly researcher" getting nothing, rather the somewhat higher-up investigator who still gets nothing, and expects not to get much more. I also don't feel lkie I have been brainwashed into this job. I don't particularily think the university is getting rich from its biomedical research endeavors, any overhead costs barely pay for buiilding upkeep etc., even at a fairly well respected/high profile/well funded university like mine. And yes, of course my lab and staff depend on funding to keep afloat, but this doesn't mean that we or the university or the government is making any money directly from this. It also desn't mean that somewhere in some high-up office there is someone directing the research enterprise and we plug away in dark labs, torturing animals to make sure that the industrial supply chain remains unbroken. Rather, all the infrastructure built around biomedical research (animal breeding, equipment manufacturers, etc.) is there to fit the needs of scientists to make their life easier and, yes make a profit. But I bet that if the nature of research changed (ie. no more animals), these companies would adapt and fill a different niche. Wherever there is money to be made people will make it by meeting other people's needs, that's the whole nature of a service industry. But that's different than saying that biomedical research is a commercial enterprise per se. It is not necessarily the case. Why do you think the NIH budget has been cut so much, I bet its not because the government is getting rich out it. Nrets 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that you're saying you know more about the animal testing industry than, say, BUAV, which has been studying it for decades, and which is very much of the viewpoint that it's an influential industry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But all the medical research charities, and the learned societies, and the governments say animal research is invaluable. Thus highlighting the problem with appeals to authority. --Coroebus 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This, while interesting, is completely beside the point. What you have failed to address in your answers, SV, is that PETA and BUAV are also lobbyists by their own admission (like the FBR they "attempt to directly influence the actions of government, through various combinations of private cajoling, public actions, and the combination of the two"). Whether you are lobbying for financial gain (which is one POV, the other says the FBR is lobbying for the human benefit animal testing affords) or for the benefit of furry animals, makes no difference to the appropriateness of the use of the term. I'm more than happy to accept that FBR as a lobby group if we start describing PETA and BUAV as the same. I am simply asking for balance. Surely the distortion comes when we describe one set of groups based on their philosophical position, yet the other based on an interpretation of their purpose. Lets be fair and treat both in the same way, whatever way of describing them we choose. Rockpocket 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. PETA doesn't only lobby. They do a great deal else. What does the Foundation do exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Like PETA and BUAV, they provide resources to journalists (to spin media their way) , they provide educational material (like PETA and BUAV) to inform the general public , they sell merchandise bearing messages of support for their philosophical position and they track and analyse the activities of activists engaging in illegal activity (much like BUAV and PETA track and analyse those scientists they say are engaging in illegal or immoral experimentation) . None of these activities are explicitly lobbying (according to WP's definition). Therefore I would argue they are better desribed as "an interest group", which incidently, is exactly what the US Library of Congress calls them. Rockpocket 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "interest group" or "special interest group." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on "special interest" as that terms has evolved a clear perjorative implication in the US (that a special interest is not in the public interest). How about "pro-animal experimentation [or testing] interest group". This adds value by telling us what their primay interest is. I's be happy to go with that. Rockpocket 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Once you've reached "pro-animal experimentation interest group" the "interest" is superfluous (is there a pro-animal research group that doesn't have an interest?) --Coroebus 20:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To address the substance of this argument, I don't like the asymmetry of calling pro-animal research groups 'lobbyists' but anti-animal research groups 'activists', but I think it is a bit much to insist that pro-animal research groups have to have a qualifier that they only support 'humane' research or whatever. --Coroebus 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently we have: "The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American lobby group" which doesn't actually tell us anything. I'd propose something like "The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American pro-animal research group" or somesuch, although I don't see any such qualification introduced for groups like PETA in the article, perhaps a link to the stub on it would be enough: "The Foundation For Biomedical Research..." --Coroebus 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)