Talk:Animal testing/Archive 3

Oxford

I removed SlimVirgin's words about Oxford University building a primate centre, because it's not! There was no point in changing the wording, because it was in a bit about use of primates so it would have been totally irrelevant. The University is building an animal house which will house mainly rodents, maybe a few primates [1]. Then SlimVirgin reverted to his version. This is very annoying, and it's not the first time. How can this person unilaterally reinstate stuff removed because it was incorrect? 82.6.117.213 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When I last checked, their intention was to build a primate center, though it may well be housed within a general animal house. There's a big campaign against it. I'll look around for a source. In future, if you want your unsourced edits not to be reverted, leave a note on the talk page explaining and/or supply a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the situation seems to be that there was no doubt two years ago that they were building a primate center, following on from the failed Cambridge application for the same. Building was then halted for 16 months after the contractors pulled out because of the animal-rights campaign, now called SPEAK. It then resumed with Oxford claiming it's not a primate center, and the planning application, which said that it was, has been removed from Oxford Council's website. One of the issues that convinces campaigners that it will be primarily a primate center is that they're constructing a bridge between the center and the Department of Experimental Psychology, which is responsible for some infamous primate experiments. [2] Oxford states in the link you provided that most of the animals housed will be rats, fish, amphibia, ferrets, and rabbits, but they wouldn't need a bridge connecting them to the Dept of Experimental Psychology in order to study rats and fish. Also, it's very misleading to speak in terms of numbers. Several thousands rats could be housed with ease compared to a few primates, which is why researchers always speak in terms of the percentage of research subjects being rodents, while carefully declining to mention the actual numbers of other species being used. Here are some of the experiments SPEAK says are being conducted on primates at Oxford [3] and Oxford says its new unit will be for "current and ongoing" research. [4] Finally, the Guardian refers to it as "an 18-million-pound primate research laboratory in Oxford." [5] I'll tweak the edit to reflect that there's a dispute about the nature of it. Do you have a reason, other than the Oxford denial, to believe they're not building a primate center? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to tell me your version of the Oxford University story. I am well aware of the new research centre and the protest against it. I even know people who live and work in Oxford. Unlike you I do at least live in the UK, and am involved in UK science, and this is regularly in our newspapers. I have many reasons to believe Oxford rather than the extremist group SPEAK. Why do you disbelieve Oxford University? Why do you believe SPEAK? Who said the planning application was going to be a primate centre? It was never going to be a primate centre, and in no way was it a replacement for the proposed Cambridge Centre. Many of Oxford University's primates are housed some way outside Oxford in a modern, recently-refurbished centre, so it would make no sense to build another one. I provided the official Oxford information on this, which must be a more reliable source than SPEAK, who have been shown to be totally misinformed, misguided and just plain wrong. That's apart from the fact that two of the leaders have criminal convictions for serious extremist acts. I'm sure if you contacted the journalist who wrote that piece (for the Observer, not the Guardian) he would admit he was wrong. Your 'evidence' is all circumstantial. THERE'S NO DISPUTE. 82.6.117.213 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Then produce a published source that says what you say above, and there will be no problem. But please don't write "SPEAK claims" and "Oxford states". Use "says" or "said" for both and then you're not favoring one over the other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the one I produced at the top of this discussuion topic, ie [6]? The caption in this recent BBC page says most of the animals will be rodents [7], so does this Press Association article on the Guardian web site[8] and this news item from RDS [9]. This article in the Financial Times doesdn't mention primates but says that the new research centre is not an expansion of existing facilities [10], similarly this from Reuters [11]. The supposed expansion of NHP use around the world (I don't think there are any reliable global figures and I don't think Wikipedia is the place for supposition) was the premise for your inclusion of Oxford in this paragraph.82.6.117.213 01:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The sources you linked to don't say exactly what you're saying, and I don't understand the relevance of your saying "I even know people who live and work in Oxford." The article currently describes what both sides say and provides sources. See below. I don't see the problem with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oxford University in the UK is planning to build a new animal-research center that protesters say will house a new primate facility, [12] [13] though Oxford has said only that, as well as other animals, "there may also be some ... primates" housed in it. [14]

This got deleted since I wrote it about 4h ago and I don't understand why, so I'm adding it back in:

"Oxford has said only that ..." - Oxford has said a lot more. The "only" suggests that what Oxford says is weaker than what the protesters say. This is the same as your objection to use of words such as 'say' versus 'claim' - these words imply favouring one side over the other. Unlike you, I see nothing wrong with favouring Oxford over the protesters - Oxford know what they are are doing, whereas the protesters base their campaigning on half-truths and inuendo: they are not a credible or reliable source. You favour the protesters because you happen to believe them, but it doesn't mean they are right.82.6.117.213 15:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 82.6.117.213 20:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You're quite wrong. I have no reason to believe either the protesters or Oxford, as both have reason to mislead, and I'm not in a position to judge between them. Therefore, we should report what both sides say, as well as what independent sources say. The Guardian/Observer would not have reported it was a new primate center for no reason, and if they did, that's their lookout. We simply report it without judging it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

BUAV

Could the anon who added the Home Office BUAV report info please start using source material correctly? If you want to say they reached a different conclusion, quote them and cite a source. The link you gave didn't go to the report. If you want to say the judge rejected the conclusions about the university specifically, quote him, because in parts (at least) he doesn't reject them, but focuses on the Home Office rules. You're trying to make the sources say what you want them to say, it seems, just as you did above with Oxford (if you're the same person) i.e. just because Oxford says it isn't a primate center and you agree with them, doesn't make it true. We report that X said A and Y said B, and we quote or very closely paraphrase, then link to a source. We don't express our own preference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Numbers killed

I've restored that between 50 and 100 million animals are estimated as used each year according to the Nuffield Council, and the source is linked to after the sentence. The removal of sourced information by anon IP addresses because it doesn't suit their POV is getting beyond a joke. Please do not remove information, if there is a source and if it's relevant and properly written, just because you don't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the Nuffield Council report did say between 50 and 100 million animals, and indeed I commented on this elsewhere in this discussion. So the source, ie the Nuffield Council report is not relevant to any estimate of 50 to 100 animals. Of course it is a very long report and I may have missed it, so if anyone can give the page on which this appears I'll eat my words. I only remove or change informatiuon where it is obviously wrong - I thought that was the basis of Wikipedia. I think you are removing/changing information when you don't like it, SlimVirgin, but then I note that one of your interests is Animal Liberation so that's hardly suprising. Why don't you play by your own rules? 82.6.117.213 15:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought you said you were going to eat your words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now found that on page 7 of the report, Nuffield says "Estimates of the total number of animals used annually in research around the world are difficult to obtain and range from between 50 to 100 million animals." This is the only mention of the 50-100 million estimate in the report and is NOT the same as saying that "between 50 and 100 million animals are estimated as used each year according to the Nuffield Council", which suggests that it's a Nuffield estimate.82.6.117.213 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Read the sentence. X is an estimate, according to the Nuffield Council. Please do learn how to use sources. With the best will in the world, I can't argue with you personally about each and every sentence, and each and every application of policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your intepretation of what the Nuffield report says. If you haven't looked up the sentence in its orginal context, then please do try to tell others, who have, that they are wrong. The sentence as you had it originally said: "The Nuffield Council on Bioethics puts the global figure at between 50 and 100 million". The Nuffield doesn't "put the global figure" at anything, it says that estimates (by others) put the figure between 50 and 100 million. Please do not patronise me. I have been reading and writing about science for decades and know how to use sources. But in the weird and wonderful world of Wiki your rules and policies seem to be somewhat different from those in the real world.82.6.117.213 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm not sure there's any benefit in comparing research skills. When you first looked at the Nuffield report, you said it didn't even mention the figure 100 million. You're also in the habit of using certain words to signal your agreement: X (good) states, but Y (bad) claims. The witnesses "agreed" that the UK has a strict regulatory system, instead of the witnesses said.

Of course when I said "please do try to tell others" I meant "please do NOT try to tell others"! When I first mentioned the Nuffield report on 4 Dec I said "SlimVirgin has referenced Nuffield Council on Bioethics as estimating the global numbers at between 50 and 100 million. I can't find anywhere that they say this." I said that I thought BUAV (as far as I knew at that time) was the only source to mention 100 million, but I didn't say specifically "Nuffield didn't even mention 100 million". When I found the sentence in the Nuffield report, which quoted others' estimates rather than Nuffield making the estimate itself, I used it to settle the matter. Please quote others correctly. I have no objection to the use of "said" instead of "agreed" in this context - I don't think it makes much difference. I could go through the whole Animal Testing article picking out the many words that show bias, but frankly I think this is a futile exercise.82.6.117.213 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is that pro-animal testing is not the default position. Oxford University, in matters where it has an interest, is no better a source than SPEAK, in matters where it has an interest. Both are trying to defend a certain position and Oxford has a great deal of money at stake. Therefore, we report both sides without signalling which side we agree with. And we report third-party sources wherever possible, again without signalling whether we agree. That's all we do as Wikipedians: report what other people say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The flawed foundation of Wikipedia is becoming clear. So we can report (and not even accurately) the words of pseudoscientists, fervent fanatics and criminals and give them the same weight and credibility as the words of universally acknowledged experts and independent observers. Then we report the errors that journalists may introduce. Oh great.82.6.117.213 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Evaluating a source depends on the circumstances. In the case of animal testing, there are no universally acknowledged experts. There are scientists who favor it and scientists who don't, but they are experts in their field, not on the issue of animal testing per se. Those who study animal testing and nothing else tend to be working for one of the anti-vivisection groups like BUAV, which are partisan. So where there are no acknowledged experts, all we can do is report what each side says, and try not to use the more disreputable groups as sources. As for using newspapers, we report what good newspapers say, warts and all. We don't do our own research to find out whether what they say is correct. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, your slurs on me are based on incorrect assumptions. I don't know what inspired your attack, but please don't try to tell me what I think and feel (and who I am!). My edits have been few and factual. I would appreciate if you could stick to the facts also, and move on. Thank you for posting Jimbo's words, which I agree with and I think we should all aspire to, hence in my very minor edits I have tried to stick to the facts and use sources properly. I hope you will extend to me the courtesy you extended to Rock "if you feel anything is inaccurate or misleading and would like to delete it, please drop a note here explaining" and welcome "constructive collaboration" between us.

Having been inside many research labs (is it OK to reflect our personal experience and knowledge here?), I believe the pictures uploaded by Rock do reflect the norm, so I'm pleased you're not contesting them. I still intend to update the UK numbers, I hope that's OK. Ermintrude 10:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I chose those images as, of the ones in the RDS library, they best reflect vivaria (in my experience). There were some of technicians cuddling animals that smack of propaganda, but i've seen many animals and cages like those. I don't know the test status of the beagles, but at any given time the majority of animals in any facility appear content and healthy, and so i believe these images fairly reflect the norm (in the UK and US at least). I think, they contrast well with the PETA images to show the reality of the different faces of animal testing. Rockpocket 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"mired in controversy"

That's simply bad writing. It should be removed. --SpinyNorman 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Source verification

Since there is conflict and dispute, the editors of this article need to adopt strict standards for source verification. In particular, it is clear that the large number of external links currently in the Animal testing article are a problem. Sources need to be reliable and an effort needs to be made to make it easy to fact-check the sources. A bare hypertext link to a website does not always provide a verifiable source. Websites can change without notice, making it impossible to find information that may have at one time been on a webpage. At the very least, an external link must be placed in the references section with the date on which the cited information was found on a particular webpage. It is also good practice to quote a fragment of the webpage so that a fact checker can search the webpage for the cited information. If a published journal article, book, or report is cited, a formal bibliographic reference needs to be included in the references section of the article. --JWSchmidt 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Illustrations and other omissions

Rockpocket, thank you for your very helpful post. My replies are interspersed below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

From someone with personal experience of the vivisection industry and a keen professional interest in animal welfare... I note that all images in the animal testing page appear to be sourced from animal liberation literature (plaintive looking monkeys and video stills of alleged abuses). Perhaps some images from the opposing lobby - standard mouse cages or a stock photo from a vivarium for example - would be appropriate for balance. This surely would better represent the majority of animal research as it occurs and thus provide a more accurate picture? I'm sure pro-research pressure groups would provide appropriate images.

By all means add images if you can find good ones, Rock. The only thing I would say is that, in my view, images taken from infiltrations are more likely to be accurate, given that the labs were not expecting photographs to be taken, whereas any images they put on display may not reflect reality. However, if you can find images that you believe are genuine, by all means add them, though I'd request that you also leave the current ones in place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, while i think most of the text is fairly NPOV, i do think the coverage does favor the liberation lobby simply in depth of coverage. A few specific points, that i would be happy to include (with sources) if a consensus agreement is reached:

• No mention of the species that are used most widely in animal tests world wide: The invertebrates Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabitis elegans. Many, many millions of both of these species are experimented on and killed each year, especially in original 'blue sky' research, to great scientific benefit (if judged by scholarly publication). The page seems to focus entirely on furry mammals, a common tactic of animals liberators, which is not borne out the reality of lab research. This is mainly due to the fact these animals are not covered under the legal framwork regulating animal testing, however.

By all means include fruit flies in the list of animals tested on. I don't think it's a "tactic" to concentrate on what you call furry animals. It's simply that the more we identify with the species, the more objectionable the experiments seem to be. That reflects standard moral thinking, rather than being a ploy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm amazed that the examples of medical breakthroughs using animals are reduced to a single sentence. Whether these breakthroughs would have been possible without the use of animals is a very valid point, but surely the whole point of an encyclopaedic entry on animal testing should be to give fair coverage to the empirical evidence that justifies its continuing existance (as well as document the strength of feeling against, of course)?

If you can find genuine empirical evidence that justifies its existence, do please add it, but please make sure that it really is "evidence," and not simply a claim. Saying "we tested substance X on dogs," and then "substance X cured cancer" does not show that experiments on dogs led to a cure for cancer. Yet that is the standard logic (as I have seen it) of the pro-testing lobby. But if there is evidence out there, and if it's from a reputable, scholarly source, then go for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• On the note of strength of feeling, statistically significant surveys are available documenting how populations feel about animal testing. Most indicate support for testing for medical purposes within a regulated framework, though some do demonstrate opposition to experiments on some types of animals (typically non-human primates) for some types of drugs (typically those with cosmetic applications). These could be quoted to illustrate the current direction of the "moral compass" on the subject.

Yes, that would be fine. Again, be careful, because for every poll the pro-testing lobby could produce in favor, the anti-testing lobby could produce one against, because the results of these polls are determined by the questions asked and the sample population. But if you can find a genuinely non-partisan one, that would be good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• No content on the - shall we say - less than reputable behaviour of some activists in an attempt to stop animal testing. If the section on abuses is deemed appropriate (and i personally think that it is) then perhaps the abuses perpetrated on scientists and others in the animal testing field should be mentioned too.

I don't think we'd have space on this page for that, because that's not about animal testing per se, but about the response of some activists to it. And to make it NPOV, we would have to go into detail about what the scientists were doing, and perhaps also into detail about how non-violent activists had responded etc etc, so it would become a bit of maze of claim and counter-claim. There is a page on Animal rights, which might be more appropriate, or Animal liberation movement, Animal Liberation Front, and Animal Rights Militia. I think it was ARM who claimed responsibility for Blakemore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Some high profile examples:

• • "Colin Blakemore, [ex] director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, became a target 12 years ago while using kittens in vision research. A razor package injured his secretary, and his three children required round-the-clock security after kidnapping threats and bomb scares. Blakemore was beaten, his home was vandalised, and demonstrations against him once brought out 200 police in riot gear. He still cannot travel without a police escort" [15]

• • The grave robbing incident at Darley Oaks Farm could be mentioned to illustrate exactly how contentious the subject is.

• Finally, no content on numbers of animals used for genetic modification - which, in the UK at least, is documented. This type of experimentation is increasing at the expense of traditional testing techniques. It has its own set of risks and benefits, proponants and critics that could be detailed.

I can add in a sentence or two on numbers of genetically modified animals, based on UK figures at least. It relates to the "breeding" figures. Are there any US figures, Rock? If I put the figures in the 'numbers' section which I have already updated, the risks, benefits etc could be detailed in the 'other types of test' section when that gets edited? I have in mind something like "The numbers of genetically modified (GM) animals recorded as being used in research has been rising since 1990, and in recent years has pushed the total number of animals up, while the number of normal animals has been falling. In 2004 in the UK, the total procedures involving GM animals (mostly mice, and many used for breeding) in research in the UK was about 914,000, or 32% of the total." I can add the Home Office report reference again if necessary. Or these sentences could be included on another page if that is the preferred option.Ermintrude 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is good, but beware of the page getting too long. Genetic modification might be worth its own page: if it doesn't exist already, feel free to create it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has strong objections to these, i'd be happy to hear them before taking any of these suggestions forward with appropriate text and citations. Rockpocket 07:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you have to add, Rock, and thank you for having the courtesy to explain your intentions. I have three requests: please add to what's on the page, but do not delete material that is already there. Secondly, if you want to add to the intro, could you discuss it here first, because it's already too long. And finally, I don't know how much WP editing you've done already, but if not much, please briefly read our policy pages: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In short, they mean: don't insert your own opinion, argument, or research (unless published); everything you add that might be challenged should be sourced to a reputable publication; and everything should be written from a neutral point of view, and in a dry, encyclopedic tone (no expressions like: "The esteemed Professor Blakemore" etc). It's common sense really. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your superquick response, Slim. I take your points on board. I think you are probably correct about the attacks on Blakemore, i may try to add it to his wiki or to the animal lib page (and duck the inevitable backlash!). You are correct that the images released by the pro lobby are not quite representative of what most real working vivaria look like, but only in as much as the images released by the anti lobby are not quite representative of what most animal experiments look like! But some images, in my experience, are close enough to reality, and if captioned properly would not be misleading.

It also struck me that there is quite a lot of detail on the rather unpleasant experimental toxicity techniques, yet little on the techniques used, and discoveries made, in animals experiments into genetics, developmental biology and disease models, for example. I can't help feeling that it currently covers the 'cost' in great detail without giving due coverage to the 'benefits' that are documented. The empirical evidence i mentioned is strong in genetic research: A certain strain of disabled mouse was found, by specific animal genetic experiments, to have a novel gene, X, mutated. X gene was consequently found to be mutated in Y% of humans with spina bifida. Further experiments show the effect of gene defect can be treated by Z compound in mice, humans and other animals. Thousands of people and animals are saved from disability, as finding X in humans directly is near impossible, unless one forces brothers and sisters to mate. A nice, clear (and some might say, rare) example of benefit as a direct result from animals experiments.

I'll go ahead and add some of the stuff i mentioned over the next few days, making sure i don't delete anything. I understand that brevity is important in wikis, however, i am also aware that limiting additions due to concerns over length could be used as a tactic to maintain POV, not that i'm suggesting that is your intention, of course ;) !! Perhaps, after my attempts to even things up a bit, if there is a feeling that its too long, we could prune back together to maintain NPOV with brevity. Thanks again for the welcome. Rockpocket 08:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been concerned for some time about the lack of balance in this entry and your suggestions are very welcome, Rockpocket. I've just changed the sentence slightly that relates to Nobel Prizes for animal related medical advances, as it's only the antivivisectionists who question the relevance of animal research in these areas. I'll continue to watch how the page develops and if I can help I will. BTW, a good source of pictures from the provivivisection side is the RDS photolibrary [16]. They seem to be copyright free.Ermintrude 12:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just corrected some UK figures - I'll up date the rest later when I have access to the hard copy stats. I also changed the wording regarding the House of Lords statement on the morality of animal research to reflect more accurately the context of what they said.

Good edits, Ermintrude. I'll try and add my contribution later today. Another concern i have is is the description of pure research. Its not true to say it is 'conducted without practical application', in todays environment research would not be funded if it was not applicable to something. Instead it would be more apt to say it is not applied to a specific disease, condition or disability. Also, the example is poor. Phychological testing accounts for a tiny perceptage of primate experiments, accounting for much less than 1% of all animals used - hardly the best example. The vast majority of psychological research is on human volunteers. It sounds like the most contentious example of animal testing (one that even many vivisectionists object to in terms of relevence) has been chosen, despite its insignifince.

Better examples would be studies into embryology/developmental biology, genetics, reproduction or neuroscience, all of which use significant amounts of all animals almost exclusively. Rockpocket 19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ermintrude, please don't add your own opinion. If we say what the pro-testing position is, there is no need to change that very clear description to "the majority view," which is a POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Slim, sorry if you read my edits in that way. In fact I was reflecting the POV of the independent Lords Committee, who started off the paragraph quoted with "more commonly", ie the majority view. My other minor edit was also intended to increase the accuracy of the piece. It is only antivivisectionists who question the role of animal experiments in Nobel prize winning research. That certain important medical developments have depended in part on animal research is a fact that doesn't beg any questions from a NPOV, particularly as the role of animals is well documented at www.nobel.se. Are you saying that we aren't allowed to state others' POV, even if we make it clear that it is their POV? I'd be interested to know what others think. Ermintrude 13:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Re the last edit, I'd suggest splitting the difference. I can see both points of view, and it really comes down to semantics and how the author sees the subject. "that begs the question as to..." is an odd phrase for an encyclopedia to use - its leading the reader to down a thought process, as opposed to stating fact. The use of animals in these studies doesn't beg the question for me personally, as i'm very much aware of the limits of non-animal models. Moreover, it didn't beg the question of the Nobel committee who are most certainly experts! Therefore, in this case, i'd vote for Ermintrude's "antivivisectionists argue...". That is a simple statement of fact. On the second edit, i think both are factual. The report clearly does summarise the "pro-testing position", but it also indicates that The House of Lords' believe this is "the majority view on animal research". However, i don't think the relative popularity of each view - which is contentious - is essential in a paragraph pointing out the moral basis of the arguments. Therefore in this case, i'd leave it as "pro-testing position". I'll try and write something about the majority feeling based on polling when i get the chance. I'll make these changes now, if either of you are not happy with this compromise, do say so. Rockpocket 19:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rock, you said you were going to add material, and I'd be very interested if you'd do that, but please don't remove what's there. "Beg the question" is used in the logical sense here, but I don't want to argue the point. Ermintrude's crusade is to make the article even more pro-testing, and I will resist that, except in the sense of intelligent, well-sourced material being added, which of course is welcome. But the intro, for example, is already very pro, and in fact needs to be adjusted to include the other POV, which I plan to do when I have time. Pro-testing is not the default position, please understand that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, excuse me for trying to find middle ground. I appreciate you are an administrator here, but i didn't think that gave you carte blanche to have your opinion dominate others. The simple fact is, Slim, "that begs the question" is highly POV. It is not an independent statement of fact. By writing that you are telling us your opinion, not informing us of fact, and there is no 'logical sense' for that in an encyclopedia. I'm sure any independent observer would concur. The entry should be neither pro nor anti, it should document the facts - which is what i corrected in that edit. It matters not what the "default position" is morally, what matters is that the facts are presented in as neutral way as possible, and in that case there can be no argument that the edit made was more neutral.

I have no axe to grind with either ideological position and all my comments are consistant with that, but your post above makes it very clear that you have an agenda to push with this entry, which makes it inappropriate for you to have the complete editorial control you seem to insist upon. Animal testing exists - some people support it, some don't. Lets get away from the petty pointscoring and get the fact out there give others informed choice. Rockpocket 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I wondered how many days it would take you to start the insults again. Rock, I have 21,000 edits on a wide variety of subjects. You and Ermintrude, including your previous anon editing, have very few edits and seem to concentrate on this issue, and in particular on this page. I think anyone looking at our contributions would agree that, if anyone has come to Wikipedia with an agenda, to push a particular POV on a particular issue, it isn't me. My agenda is to be a Wikipedian.

If you don't like "begging the question," by all means rephrase, but I disagree with Ermintrude's formulation, and I'm not going to start agreeing because you insult me.

As for pro-testing not being the default position, I wasn't referring to morality, though that is also true, but NPOV. Pro-testers seems to think that pro-testing is NPOV, and anti-testing is POV. But that is not correct. Both are POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any insults from Rock, and I was prepared to agree with his/her compromise in the spirit of reasonableness. Now Slim has reverted, accusing me of having a pro-testing agenda! This claim is made on the basis, as she admits, of "very few edits". I am shocked at this over-reaction to a couple of minor edits and I think it is unreasonable verging on insulting. My agenda was/is to try to improve accuracy. Ermintrude 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read again what Slim said, and apparently I'm "on a crusade"!!! Ermintrude 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You aren't shocked, it isn't an overreaction, and you haven't just made a couple of minor edits. You've been editing this page for awhile, and based on your editing and commenting style, I have a good idea which IPs you were using. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, some honesty would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ermintrude, but i don't see any evidence of a 'crusade'. His/her edits seemed reasonable enough to me and a compromise seemed like a good way to find middle ground. If you'd be happy with a rephrase, you should have said that, instead of reverting immediately and giving the impression you are inflexible to justified minor change. I'm content to rephrase also. How about "though whether that aspect of the research was necessary is in question", with a citation to literature making that point? I agree with your assessment about POV. I think the problem is that that intro is set up to outline the establishment case (which is pro) and it kind of sets the default tone for the whole article, hence you object to the alternative being labelled as minority 'antivivisectionists" views. Thats a valid criticism and a way around it would be to put the ideological case against in the intro too. This would give the intro more balance and stop such a pro tone being set. The flip side of this, however, is that i think the body of the article tries to revert this balance and omits some of the facts regarding the claimed benefits of animals testing as i mentioned previously. That is something i will get around to when work dies down a bit. The other thing i would like to contest is the use of psychological testing as the only example of pure research. It really is a very, very minor, and contentious, example. By all means leave it there if you feel strongly about it, but can we at least add one or two of the major disciplines as well?

I'm aware of your extensive contributions, and you should be commended on that. I certainly didn't mean to insult you, and as for "again" i'd like to know when i insulted you previously. I'm sad that you assume i have an agenda based on my minor contributions so far, as a true independent would not make assumptions based on that alone. Quantity does not equal quality. Instead they would assess the content of our discussion here which, i think, shows my aim is for balance. The reason i assumed you had an agenda was you statement about pro-testing being default. It appears i may have misunderstood your meaning, and i apoligise for that. I also note that you have worked to get the pro-side in in the past.

It is true i have limited my contributions (though not exclusively to this article), but that is only because i'm focussing on subjects that i have, what some might call, 'expert' knowledge of. If i'm to be criticized for restricting my input to areas where i have some credibility, then its unlikely wikipedia will be able to reduce its error rate. I'll say again, that i'm only here to get the fact down and i challenge you to show me where i have demonstrated unfair bias suggesting i have an agenda. It looks like we have the same goals here, and while i can understand you holding the reigns tightly due to the POV issues, by doing so you are giving the impression that you are not willing to collaborate. Lets see if we can work together to get this article looking top notch? Rockpocket 00:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On the question of balance in illustrations, I note that, at the last count, there were three primate pictures, two dog pictures, one mouse picture and one rat picture. Hardly representative of animal research/testing where 85% are rodents and there are very small proportions of primates and dogs. 217.206.196.219 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving on

Rock, I would genuinely welcome anyone to this page if they had expert knowledge of the subject, and could write clearly and intelligently, regardless of their POV. But please note that being a researcher (e.g. a psychologist or neuroscientist), who has relied on or witnessed animal testing does not make one an expert in that area. An expert on animal testing is someone who has studied or published on animal testing. There are very few of those around, and most of them (though not all) work for BUAV or similar groups.

This page has attracted a lot of bad editing from people with strong views but very little knowledge, and it is frustrating to have to deal with it. That frustration sets the tone of the talk page, I'm afraid.

To judge by his style of writing, Ermintrude has previously edited as 82.6.117.213 (talk · contribs), an anti-BUAV editor, who likes to SHOUT, doesn't know how to use sources, and whose basis for one edit was that he "even know[s] people who live and work in Oxford." That has been the level of the debate.

I had vowed I would not, but someone told me a lot had been happening since I left so I should come back and take a look. Reading through this lot I can see it, but unfortunately some things don't change. Of course the quote above looks silly taken out of context (thanks SlimVirgin). I make no apology for being anti-BUAV, because they play fast and loose with scientific evidence. I even admit I shouted, out of sheer frustration at being ignored, misinterpreted and I believe deliberately misunderstood. So this is my last contribution: I have better things to do out in the real world. Oh, and BTW I'm sure she won't mind if I tell you - it was my good friend Ermintrude who told me what was going on - no doubt you can build some silly conspiracy theory out of that. 82.6.117.213 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the content, "though whether that aspect of the research was necessary is in question" is fine by me (though note that the sentence in question is an example of begging the question, and this isn't a POV: it simply fits the definition). Regarding the intro, I wrote it that way to fend off pro-testing attacks, but I intend to delete one of the pro paragraphs and add an anti-one. I just haven't had time. Please do add other disciplines to the pure research examples. As I say, I will have no problem with intelligent, well-written, well-sourced (if necessary) additions. But I would appreciate it if there were no deletions without prior discussion, and I request this only because of the previous poor editing this page has seen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that any editor who has arrived at Wikipedia for the purpose of pushing a pro-testing POV consider these words from Jimbo: "We don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians" and "I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations ... For me, when I enter Wikipedia, I try to leave my personal politics at the door. I try to leave my personal opinions about religion, etc. at the door. Here, I am a Wikipedian. And this inspires in me a feeling of serious quiet thoughtful reflection ... Outside, I may be an advocate. But here, I am a Wikipedian." [17]

Rock, this is the attitude I ask that we adopt while editing this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept that, Slim and couldn't agree more with Jimbo's inspirational aspirations. I will certainly add more when i have time, and will refrain from removing anything further without discussion here first. Regarding the begging of questions versus stating it is questioned... i personally think there is a slight difference in meaning between the two, but i guess its tomato/tomato. Finally, i certainly wouldn't claim to be expert in the philosophy of the subject. But i have, in the past, carried out vivisection and since researched and published on ways of replacing animals in research with alternative technologies. I've also spoken publically on the subject, believe it or not, both in defense and promotion of testing, depending on the model under discussion. As i said, i'm no ideologue, but i am very familiar with the facts on the ground and am employed in animal welfare, thats what i feel i can add to this article. On that, lets move on. Rockpocket 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Rock. Any added material will be much appreciated, and if you feel anything is inaccurate or misleading and would like to delete it, please drop a note here explaining. The article as you see it is very much a work-in-progress. I started tackling it a few months ago but was ground down by pro-testing POV and gave up. I'd very much like to see it get into better shape.

As for your edits, thank you, they're good, as are the images. I'm a bit concerned about the beagles, because they look like puppies who were bred for testing but before being used. I've deliberately avoided using graphic images from infiltrations because of the inevitable complaints from the pro-side, and so I suppose I'm not overly pleased to see the pro-testing lobby's images: happy puppies with shining coats, toys, and lots of company, which is definitely not the norm. However, I won't contest it. I look forward to a constructive collaboration. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember

Unbalanced is not the same as POV. So, if the article has more information regarding the anti-animal testing lobby that does not mean it is POV.

I am going to go through the article and post what I think is wrong with it here in the next day or so (it is a long article - 14 pages when printed!).-localzuk 10:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LZ. We should be careful not to let it get much longer. Rock, I mentioned POV pushing earlier. This edit from today [18] is an example of what we have to put up with on any page related to animal testing. The deletion of an obviously accurate (and in fact trivially true) point, linked to two sources, by anon IP 217.206.196.218 (talk · contribs), which has mostly edited only this page, and which resolves to the Research Defence Society in London. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in that organization. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Given previous discussion on this point, SlimVirgin cannot reasonably claim that the point deleted was "obviously accurate (and in fact trivially true)". The two sources are in fact the antivivisection groups that raise the question, and have no scientific credibility. Thus it is likely an inaccurate point, hence the deletion. But SlimVirgin - who doesn't inspire confidence as a neutral moderator - will no doubt reinsert it. 217.206.196.218 16:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The line is stating that it has been questioned and then references the people questioning it - this seems like a normal method of writing to me. It does not say anything POV (such as 'many people question this') instead just saying that it has been questioned - nothing more nothing less. To remove it is vandalism and an attempt to make the article unbalanced.-localzuk 16:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with localzuk. While it is true that antivivisectionist pressure groups do question it - irrespective of scientific credibility - polls suggest a significant proportion of the general public do also. Thus stating it is "in question", provides the reader with the information that there is significant debate about it, without suggesting the view is 'incorrect' or less valid by associating it with lobbyists exclusively. I don't think this proves anon is pushing POV though, being a member of RDS does not preclude one from editing here. However, i do agree with the point about "mired in controversy" - simply stating "its controversial" uses less emotive language without compromising meaning. I don't see why there is such strong feeling to keep 'mired in'. Rockpocket 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)