Talk:Animal testing/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Procedures

I'm a bit concerned about this passage:

The term "procedure" refers to an experiment, which might last several months or even years. The figures show that most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are killed and dissected afterwards."

A Procedure (as defined by ASPA in the UK, which is what's being referred to in the reference) is any experiment on animals which is more invasive than an injection with a hypodermic syringe (i.e. excludes dietary/purely observational). They may last days, weeks, months - but the vast majority last a matter of hours. Also, the legislation is designed so that most animals are only used in one procedure, and in the vast majority of them they are euthanased afterwards - the reasoning behind this is that animals (especially small animals such as rodents and mice) are highly likely to suffer as a result of being allowed to recover, and the whole point of ASPA is to limit animal suffering - the assumption being that a dead animal is better than a suffering animal. The passage above appears to be written by someone who's only understanding of the legislation and terminology comes through reading anti-vivisectionist literature, and hence is a little distorted. Nothing is precisely untrue, but the phrasing here is deliberately misleading, and somewhat lacking in NPOV.

134.36.64.139 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that this site is international - so UK definitions are not good enough to cover all aspects of it. I agree that it could be clearer, but you must assume good faith, ie. don't go throwing random thoughts about the who wrote the sentence and say that it is 'deliberately misleading'. If my memory serves me correctly, the sentence was created through quite a discussion quite a while back - as it used to confuse the term 'experiment' with 'procedure'. How about proposing an altered version which you think would be better. (Also, please post new items at the end of the page).-Localzuk^(talk) 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rodents

I don't understand the concern about pointing out the high cost of the mice used in research today. The costs that were listed were not prices of retail items offered for sale to the public. These are the charges, the fees, incurred by researchers at their institutions. These are essentially lab fees.

The claim that mice, often costing thousands of dollars each and requiring special care, are used because they are cheap, easy to acquire, etc. is false. It used to be true prior to the advent of knockouts and knockins, but no longer.

More common, undefined, or wild strains, might be being used in toxicology (though it seems to me that rats are more common in tox studies), but in nearly every paper published using mice, there is a description of some particular mutant strain.

What I did not add to the section, but will once I run down a reputable source is the industry's own recognition that producing these esoteric mutants inadvertently produces many individuals without the desired mutation. I wrote in "Animal Experimentation and Human Rights Review" (Human Rights Review. Transaction Periodicals. Rutgers, January-March 2003):

The Mouse Genetics Core (MGC) explains what it takes to produce mutant mice:
In the case of transgenic mice, for each two to eight animals sent on to a scientist to experiment on, twenty to fifty mice must be produced and screened. Those not meeting the the genetic criteria are killed. For chchimeric mice, for each two to six that are sent on to a scientist to experiment on, twenty to forty will be born and tested.
Thus, in the best case scenario, eight out of twenty animals born go on to be used. This means that the 1.7 million mutant mice produced and sold by NIH-commissioned Jackson Laboratory in 1997 actually represent between 4.25 million and 85 million animals.

This massive increase in animal numbers and the resultant massive number of animals killed as byproducts of genetic engineering has been commented on in the lab animal journals. I'll look for an article I can cite. In the meantime, my additions should be restored. My observations are far more accurate than the claim that mice are used today because they are cheap. Rbogle 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] "One senior animal technician at a leading British university told New Scientist being asked to kill so many animals upset her. 'I go away feeling physically and emotionally exhausted, and I think it's important for people to understand how we feel.'" Rbogle 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A few comments. Your concern about genetic engineering resulting in an increase in animal numbers is addressed elsewhere in the article: In 2005, the BBC reported that the UK figures continued to "creep up...mainly due to the growing use of genetically modified mice" [46] with 2,896,198 procedures carried out on 2,812,850 animals in that year. [47]. Note also, under the section on genetic modification: ...animal rights and welfare groups regularly question the value and effectiveness of transgenic techniques, [85] [86] as animals do not always model human diseases accurately [87] or in their entirety. [88] [89] Public interest group, GeneWatch UK, reports that genetic modification is "highly inefficient, wasteful of animal lives..." Adding a sentence about concerns over costs might be appropriate here.

I agree, and have made the point elsewhere in this talk page, that the numbers reported to not fully reflect the real numbers of animals. However, could never find a good way to source that without resorting to OR. If you can find a reliable source that makes this point, then do add it. You seem to suggest, you have published on this. If that is the case, then it would be very useful.

In the UK, animals generated that have a potentially harmful genetic mutation are counted in the returns, as are those that have undergone any procedure (including, for example, tail tipping), thus irrespective if they are the "right" transgenic or not, they are still recorded in the return. I can't comment about the situation in the US, though your reasoning does appear sound.

Part of the reason i edited the content you provided was for brevity. The purpose of this section, as stated at the top, is 'to list the numbers of individual species used.

That seems fair, but there seem to be claims throughout the section that deviate from a simple accounting of species and numbers. As soon as a justification for the use of any species is presented, it seems appropriate to balance it.

A previous expansion on NHPs in xenotransplantation was removed from here to a more appropriate place, thus on the same principle i tried to reduce the large blockquote on something that is not directly relevent to the numbers of mice. A detailed analysis of the creation of transgenics would be much more appropriate under the article on genetically modified organisms.

Since this article addresses the controversy, the production of transgenics seems appropriate, especially if there is a claim that mice are used because of their low cost.

 If you want some content about cost, much better to find a sourced estimate at the average cost of making a line "with desired characteristics" , rather than blockquoting detailed dollar prices for technical procedures that are incomprehensible to most readers.

But you left the block quote about procedures and dumped the bit on fees.??

The article is already overlong, detailed content that fits better in other article should be moved there.

Your contribution: With the advent of genetic engineering technology, mice with desired characteristics have become more difficult to obtain, much more expensive, more difficult to care for, and more difficult to produce. is simply not true. Prior to the advent of GM techniques, many "mice with desired characteristics" would be almost impossible to obtain. Ever tried generating a Cre recombinase expressing mouse using Mendelian crosses of wildtype mice only? You would be at it for an infinitely long time. Thus the difference in expense and difficulty to care for is a moot point. Suggesting "mice with desired characteristics" are now "more difficult to produce" is also grossly misleading. Any old grad student can make a transgenic these days. New technology makes things easier, otherwise we wouldn't adopt it.

Maybe the sentence would have been more easily understood as: With the advent of genetic engineering technology, mice with specified characteristics can now be created. These mice are much more expensive, more difficult to care for, and more difficult to produce than the wild-type mice used historically.

As for your statement: The claim that mice, often costing thousands of dollars each and requiring special care, are used because they are cheap, easy to acquire, etc. is false., well, "cheap" is a relative term. Compared to keeping an equivalent number of cats, dogs, monkeys - infact any other mammal - they are incredibly cheap. Ever tried genetically engineering a rat? Compared to making a transgenic rat, cat or dog, acquiring genetically modified mice is very easy. Thus, in the context of animal experimentation, that statement is perfectly true. If you have a concern about the unqualified used of the word cheap, then add relatively infront.

Transgenic dogs and cats aren't available; comparing transgenic mouse costs to them is meaningless. Costs overall aren't easily summarized. If cost is the reason mice are used today (as opposed to historically) then mouse users should switch to voles assuming that this per diem schedule typifies general case [2]

I'm not sure of the purpose of the BBC quote you have provided. I don't see its relevence. I don't feel that great after killing mice either, but what does it have to do with the the number of rodents used each year? Rockpocket 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, you say, "My observations are far more accurate than the claim that mice are used today because they are cheap." I would point you in the direction of WP:V and consider "...Mice are relatively cheap to breed and maintain (compared to larger mammals)..." [3], "...There is a simple reason for their popularity: Mice are cheap and easily messed with...", [4], "...Mice breed rapidly, have relatively short lives, and are cheap to buy and look after..." [5] Rockpocket 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The number killed, as a result of producing these animals is hard to grasp. The quote suggests that even lab workers have been (suprised, shocked, impressed, bothered) by the large increase in numbers.

But back to the original claims: "Mice are the most commonly utilized vertebrate species, popular because of their availability, size, low cost, ease of handling, and fast reproduction rate."

The cost isn't low if we are speaking of engineered mutants. To an average reader, "low cost" will not equate with thousands of dollars. Even the qualification, "relatively low cost" is not clear enough.

The next sentence "Mice are widely considered to be the prime model of inherited human disease and share 99% of their genes with humans," seems misleading to me. This 99% claim is going to be misunderstood by most readers. Of the mammals sequenced, one human, one chimpanzee, one(?) mouse, one(?) rat, the genomes are, across some measures, nearly identical. claiming that this similarity is why mice are chosen, is misleading since mice were in widespread use prior to this claim, and, in any event, just what these similarities even mean is subject to debate. Clearly, the measures of similarity now available suggest strongly that we are still much in the dark concerning geno/pheno connections.

Simply, if the section is going to list species and numbers, then it should do only that. If it is going to makes justifications, then it should offer balance.Rbogle 18:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Transgenic dogs and cats are available. But (compared with mouse trangenesis) they are incredibly expensive and highly inefficient and thus they are rare. Which was kind of my point. You seem to be missing the point here, the information in the section is not a pro-research opinion that needs to be balanced by an anti-opinion. It is not a justification, it is an explanation. Nowhere does it say "transgenesis is a good technique because it is cheap". Moreover, throughout the article there is plenty of dissenting opinion one transgenics. The place to start is in the section on transgenesis, which, is where your content should really be in the first place (except most of the issuse are already mentioned there).

It is well recorded that the reason so many mice are used is because they have a combination of factors that make them the model organism choice. If cost was the only factor we would all use yeast or nematodes (or voles... ever tried making a trangenic vole?). The factors include relative cost, efficieny, availability, body of knowledge, ease of handling and breeding and because they share a high level of biology and chemistry with humans. The reason this is explained is to give context why the numbers are so high, not to promote their use. This position is expressed by independent media time and time again, thus it is a highly verifiable reason.

That you think to "an average reader, "low cost" will not equate with thousands of dollars" is not really relevent. I might think Easyjet's prices are not cheap, but it doesn't change the fact that, relative to other carriers, it is a low cost airline. That, as Einstein might have said, is relativity for you.

In addition, in a discussion of why mice are so widely used, comparing costs of "creating" wildtype mice (i.e. putting a male and female together in a cage and letting nature take its course) and transgenics (a complex technological process) is missing the point completely. Historically, Mendelian crosses with mice were cheaper than with any other species. Now, modern mouse transgenesis is expensive compared to old school genetics, but its still a hell of a lot cheaper than dog, cat, rat, pig or sheep transgenesis. Thus while the overall costs of animal experimentation has gone up (in parallel with the sophistication of the experiments we can do with them) the fact that mice are the cheapest, most readily available and most efficient experimental mammalian species has remained constant. Your argument appears to be one against animal experimentation on grounds of cost/benefit. That is fine, and if sourced, perfectly appropriate for the article, but it has nothing at all to do with giving context to numbers of animals used. Rockpocket 22:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pure research

"Embryos used in experiments are often not covered by legislation and therefore not always required to be reported." Are embryos ever covered? I don't think they are ever covered in the US, though animals they are taken from sometimes are. "Consequently, those that believe embryos are de facto animals claim the published number of experimental animals used is an under-representation." Who has made this particular claim? This needs a citation and additional specificity; who are "those"? The implication seems to be that critics are mistaken about under-reporting because of this claim. Rbogle 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If i recall correctly, in the UK the Act does require certain mammalian embryos to be euthanised in a specific manner, thus technically they are "covered" by the act. I'm not sure i there is any specific conditions when an embryo would be reported if it was killed before the end of natural gestation, though.

Regarding the implication of that statement, i read it differently. I don't think it is a case of anyone being mistaken, simply that the published number is conditional on what is covered by the legislation and what is defined as an animal. It follows that if you believe embryos are animals, then the reported number of animals used is an underrepresentation. I hear these sorts of arguments a lot, i'll see if i can find a reliable source. Rockpocket 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your point regarding being mistaken; I misinterpreted the plain language, I think. Maybe it could say something other than "Consequently." Maybe "This contributes to..."

I think this is also misleading: "Fruit flies, worms, mice and rats are all widely used in research into mechanisms of vision..." Here's why:

A CRISP search for 2005: 52 hits for the query: (rat & vision); 154 hits for the query: (mouse & vision); 60 hits for the query: (macaca & vision); 15 hits for the query: (drosophila & vision); 2 hits for the query: (elegans & vision). It appears that, regarding vision studies, monkeys may be more commonly used than rats, drosophila, or C. elegans.Rbogle 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem changing the "consequently" link. Regarding the other sentence, i think it makes greater sense if not selectivly quoted. The sentence continues "... taste, [66] hearing, [67] touch, [68] and smell. [69]." The other animals listed are widely used in research into these other mechanisms (for example, C. elegans is an excellent model of sensory touch and all four models are widely used in olfaction.) One could, of course, expand to detail which model is most used for each type or research, but i was trying to keep it simple and get across the point why these animals are the most common models in research. The reason there is no mention on monkeys in this section is because the use of primate in pure research is relatively rare. At the fundemental level of science, we learn using cheaper, plentiful and more tractable models than primates; the vast majority of their use is in applied research.

Note also, that your CRISP search will not differentiate between pure and applied research, nor will it reflect the vast body of research that is not federally funded by the US. I'm pretty happy with the sentence as it stands, but i guess it could be qualified better if you have concerns. Rockpocket 00:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure that applied and pure (pure seems a loaded term, I would stick with basic) are so easily differentiated as suggested in your comment, "The reason there is no mention on monkeys in this section is because the use of primate in pure research is relatively rare." A pretty good set of simple definitions is at [6]. I like the fact that they point out that research that has little liklihood of seeing benefits in the short term (the Gray Zone) should more rightly be called basic rather than applied. Following this rather common sense approach to differentiating basic from applied, the overwhelming majority of research in the US using monkeys and other animals is basic, or pure research.Rbogle 01:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not differentiating personally. In the UK, the use of animals for pure/basic, applied and toxicology/product-saftey testing is specifically categorised in the Home Office returns. According to the 2004 report: 1590 macaques were used in "applied studies", 394 were used for "Protection of man, animals or environment" while only 60 were used in "fundamental biological research". Compare these 60 animals to the total number of other mammals used in "fundamental biological research" that year (593,820, thats 0.01%) not to mention the many millions of invertebrates not recorded and you can see why the focus of the pure/basic research section is on non-primate models. Of course, the proportion of primates in all animals used in applied research is tiny also (~0.5%), but at since that is the area where the vast majority of primates are used in the UK (as defined by the British Home Office) that is where, in my opinion, their use should be mentioned for balance. The aim of both applied and basic/pure sections was not to be exhaustive in reporting which animals are used for in which area, or even to be explicit on the definition of either, but simply to give an overview with examples that reflect the norms. Rockpocket 02:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The problems I see in the section(s) might be due to the mismatch in language and definition between the UK system and the US system.Rbogle 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that may be the case. The article is highly biased towards the UK, unfortunately. But its somewhat inevitable, as the level of statistical detail available from the Home Office is unmatched. Hence, the most accurate information available tends to be from Britian. Rockpocket 05:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History

FYI: "Galen, a physician in second-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "father of vivisection." [17]"

This claim comes from a section on the LPAG site that says: "Then, during second century Rome, a physician named Galen began to dissect animals because Church protocol did not allow human autopsies. He began to dissect goats and pigs and compared his findings to what he knew about humans. He is now known as the "father of vivisection."2

Following this citation back, it comes from Greek CR, Greek JS (2000) Sacred Cows and Golden Geese. The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc., New York, New York., which, in turn, is based on a passage from Hans Ruesch's Slaughter of the Innocent.

From 157 and 161, Galen worked as a doctor to gladiators at Pergamum. This was around the time that Christians were being persecuted by Roman authorities and used as dispoable items in the games. Galen undoubtedly had opportunity to examine many ripped and torn human bodies, and there is no reason to imagine that he would not have been allowed to fiddle about on dying Christians, though I've come across no records that he did. "Church protocol," in this referenced passage is a claim not supported by the historical setting.

Here's a statement from another website: "Vivisection originated in second century Rome when Galen, physician to gladiators, was prevented from continuing his dissections of human cadavers by the Church-led moral opposition. He switched his attention to goats and monkeys instead and thus became the 'father of vivisection'. http://www.allaboutanimals.org.uk/PT-Testing.asp

And another: "In second century Rome, the state-supported Church frowned upon the co-called desecration of human corpses and autopsies were outlawed. With no human bodies to learn from, the respected physician to the gladiators, Galen, had little choice but to cut up pigs and other animals, hence earning him the title 'Father of Vivisection.'" http://www.ark-ii.com/campaigns/

This is a widespread claim, undermined when it is realized that Christians had no standing in the Roman Empire during Galen's time. What is very likely is that Galen learned things about human physiology from seeing so many people ripped apart, stabbed, clubbed, mauled, and otherwise opened to inspection. He probably sought to test his conjectures about what all this exposed tissue actualy did by dissecting living animals; at a tme when no real pain relief was available, a person in his position must have grown innured to seeing others' agony. This would have made his animal victims' cries unremarkable to him.

A more believable source observes: "Under Nero in the 1st century AD, even the torture of Christians became a star attraction at the Circus Caligulas. There were few protests against such marketable massacres." http://www.iridescent-publishing.com/rtm/ch1p1.htm

Just another example of the way that questionable claims become "fact" in today's virtual world. Becareful about what you read and cite.159.182.38.8 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, however the ideas that you present are original research and unless it can actually be attributed back to the original source then it wouldn't be acceptable to include it. If you can edit the statement to include a more truthful statement with a source then please do.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the bit above about Galen from work and had forgotten to sign in. I wasn't suggesting adding anything about the false claims (made elsewhere) regarding the impact of the Church. It isn't mentioned in the article itself (but is a weakness given that the cited source is in error), and that Galen was an animal vivisector is an accepted fact. My only point was that some of the sources commonly cited frequently say that he vivisected animals because of the Church's sanctions against autopsy and cutting into living humans; and that's just silly because Christians were being killed in spectacles for entertainment at the Circus at about the time of Galen. This a matter of historical fact that needs no more of a citation than the claim that the Romans didn't have airplanes.

But, on another note, in the same section is this: "In 1796, Edward Jenner extracted pus from pox-infected cows to inoculate James Phipps against smallpox. The virus was the top cause of mortality in England before Jenner's work."

Even if this were true, I don't see how it fits into a section on the history of animal testing. Jenner had learned that dairy maids were not as likely to get smallpox as everyone else, noticed that they frequently did get cowpox, so inoculated some non-dairy maids, and they gained immunity. In what sense is this "animal testing"? Which of the types of research mentioned later in the article would this be?

But, of course, if the uncited story is false, then it certainly doesn't belong. Roy Porter, in his outstanding Of Greatest Benefit to Man (Norton, 1997), says that inoculations, called variolations, with smallpox actually being smeared into an opened vein, were already popular and widespread prior to Jenner's discovery. Moreover, he used the pus from one of the pustules on a dairy maid's hand, not the pus from a cow. Jenner's discovery had nothing to do with using animals. Interestingly, variolation was tested concurently with the increasing use of variolation, on British prisoners.Rbogle 02:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of Wellcome Trust pictures

I have to question how neutral it is to include pictures from the Wellcome Trust library - surely pictures taken by activists with hidden cameras during exposes would be far more "neutral", as they were taken during working hours during a normal days work, with staff unaware that they were being photographed, thus not putting on pretences - unlike the Wellcome photos, I'm sure.

"Theres a man from the Wellcome trust coming tomorrow with a camera, make sure all the cages are clean and the sick looking dogs are kept out of frame...!"

Benefits Section?

I was thinking that since the "controversies" and "alternatives" sections are in the article, it would be more NPOV to add a "benefits" section which outlines what medical discoveries have been the result of animal testing (vaccines, medication, operations, etc). The article is already pretty long, but I think it would help balance it out a little. Any thoughts?--C civiero 07:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free, so long as you can provide reliable, verifiable, sources for any claims. Remember that a lot of these discoveries are also contested by animal rights activists so they are likely to be countered.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Contested how? Nrets 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The claims would need to be appropriately sourced and referenced, that is all. For example, you could say that Jonas Salk isolated the multiple polio strains he used to make the polio vaccine from non-human primates, that is not contestable and is easily referenced. If you say the polio vaccine DEPENDED on that work, you would probably find an activist who wanted to contest it. Animal testing played a role in many many major medical discoveries, but what could have been accomplished WITHOUT animal testing is speculative and that point will be exploited over and over by animal rights activists. It would work well as an expansion of the "history" section. Just keep to the facts on the roles the animal testing played in the discovery process. --158.93.12.41 15:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is perfect. As long as such a section does not state that such benefits would not have come about *without* animal testing then it would be fine. If you said that such research depended on the animal testing then I could easily find several, reliable, verifiable sources that would contest that. For example, the claim that Penicillin was an achievement through animal testing would be easily contestable. -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that we're on the topic, you and others keep mentioning that one can't say that a specific advance depended on animal testing. But why not? I'm genuinely curious about what several references you could produce that actually contest that. And not references that say such and such animal rights expert expresses this opinion, but an actual example or well laid out scintific plan as to how, say, the development of polio vaccine or open-heart surgery, could be developed without animal testing, with the safety of humans in mind. Also, what are some examples of major medical advances that were done without animal testing? I realize that there are alternatives, but many of these alternatives depend on prior data derived from animal experiments. I'm not trying to start an argument, I am genuinely curious as to what the arguments are that refute the fact that animal testing was necessary for several medical advances. Nrets 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as all medical advances require animal testing if I recall correctly, or at least drugs do (in UK, USA and EU etc...) so it would be impossible to state that animal testing was 'unnecessary' as the law dictates that it is, and is compulsory. To state that something 'depends' on it is a fallacy based on this fact. True, alternatives are available, but at some point in the development of whatever the treatment may be, animal testing has to be used does it not?

My argument is that we can never truly state that either animal testing was actually needed (as in not just needed to fulfill a legislative requirement) or that it wasn't needed (as this would require a rather pointless second set of research into the same thing, which no-one would do). My point is that the claim of animal testing being benificial only comes in the form of 'Scientist A, and Organisation B state that this achievement would not have been possible without testing on animals'. This kind of claim is countered by many animal rights people and an increasing number of scientists.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, I understand you can't say discovery "X" depended on animal research since, even though it was done by animal research, there's no guarantee it could not have been done another way. And that it would be illegal to do otherwise. But that is not a sufficient argument, and is not backed up by facts. The claim that animal research is beneficial stems from the fact that, animal research leads to medical discoveries, which is a fact supported by data rather than the opinion of Scientist A or Organization B. What I'm looking for is a reference that, in the absence of any actual real-life examples, 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 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

It seems like basically all of the pictures in this article are either for shock value or to evoke feelings about "warm, fuzzy animals". Maybe cut a few and show have a picture of some insulin syringes or something? --C civiero 07:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are all representative of animal testing. A picture of a syringe has nothing to do with animal testing specifically. They should stay as they are I think.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. How is an image of a primate representative, when it is also stated that those account for 0.3% of animals used? Many of these will be more primitive ones, such as marmosets. A picture of a mouse or a rat in a cage would be much more representative of what is going on. I, too, feel that the choice of images is rather biased towards shock or emotional value, rather than scientific information.

How is a shaved monkey huddling in the corner of its cage indicative of testing specifically? NASA has public domain images of the space monkeys and chimps, and those were truly engaged in testing and touted as American heros. Why not a space chimp?

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/MERUNMAN/10073423.jpg http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/MERUNMAN/10073425.jpg http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/MERUNMAN/10073453.jpg --Animalresearcher 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Chimps as man's best friend, eagerly helping to push back the frontiers of science, and being rewarded with cuddles and kindness? Please. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that having pictures of mice or rats would be better for the first picture on the page, since it seems like those are used the most in animal testing. But the picture of the monkey would be right later in the page; I'm in favor of animal testing, but I think people should see what it means. 67.70.18.187 01:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Jordan

The monkey is an image of an animal in a laboratory that was taken without the knowledge of the company that owns the laboratory. As such, it is the most independent type of image we can obtain. I think especially given the nature of the lead section, which is almost entirely pro-testing, the independent image needs to stay. It is also a freely licensed image, which speaks in its favor too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a pretty bizarre definition of independent. It is an image taken by an anti-vivisection organisation, and as such is as independent as one taken by a pro-vivisection organisation (like a lab, or university). An independent image would be one taken by a government inspector, or someone going undercover in organisations at random. The problem is one of how representative the image is, PETA are unlikely to publish pictures of monkeys where they don't look unhappy, and pro-vivisection groups are unlikely to publish pictures of abused animals. --Coroebus 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an excellent definition of "independent," actually. The labs put out images that would make you think their dogs and monkeys are the luckiest animals in the world. The government inspectors aren't indepedent of the labs; governments all over the world ensure that legislation exists to allow these labs to function. This image was taken by someone working undercover, who had nothing to do with the lab or the government, and one of the editors on this page who has worked in such labs has said it's consistent with his knowledge of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So ergo, anything said by animal rights groups on the subject of animal testing must be accepted at face value because they are "independent", but anyone else (governments, universities, BigPharma) is not to be trusted because they have a nefarious special interest? This is humpty dumptyism and a double standard of the most transparent kind. I am not necessarily saying the picture doesn't show a fairly representative view of what a monkey in a lab cage looks like, but I am VERY strongly objecting to your strange definition of "independent", and trying to nip it in the bud before you attempt to extend it elsewhere in this, and related articles. --Coroebus 12:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts at nipping me in the bud. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you are saying they are independent of. The undercover person who took this photo is independent of the animal testing industry but not independent of the animal testing debate.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think PETA can legitimately license this image. Doesn't the fact that the photograph was taken on private property without the consent of the owner make its use in Wikipedia a little reckless? Haber 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the testing companies have tried that one, but the argument was rejected by the courts in Europe (UK and Germany, as I recall). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that is the case. A UK judge ruled that the “rough manner in which the animals [are] handled and the bleakness of the surroundings in which they are kept”, which he said, “cry out for explanation” and said that the arguments against an injunction to prevent their distribution were “cumulative” and “overwhelming”.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but that supports taking the pictures down. The reason that the Wikipedia image policy exists is to prevent Wikipedia from ending up in court. Surely there have to be other pictures somewhere that aren't likely to draw litigation. Haber 00:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what LZ said? There is absolutely no legal problem with this image. Sorry to disappoint. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And it is still unclear to me why a British court can decide whether it is legal to use a picture which was taken illegally in private property in the United States. Is it legal to use this picture in the US? Access to WP is not limited to Britain and therefore, while legal in Europe, use of this picture is not necessarily legal in the US. Nrets 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's less censorship in the States than in Europe, so if it's regarded as okay in the latter, the former is likely okay, and none of the companies have tried to stop it from being used in the U.S. It's sad that you're so keen to find a problem with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Censorship is not the issue. The U.S. government probably won't care. A civil case, on the other hand, could result if Wikipedia somehow damages a corporation by knowingly using photographs that were illegally obtained. Please don't make this personal by calling it "sad" or accusing us of trying to find a problem. Haber 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to invent a problem. The photograph has been used for years on various websites. The company is aware of this. They have taken no action. If they were going to, they would ask the organization that took the image and hosts it to take it down. They haven't. If they were going to sue anyone, it would be that organization, which has millions, unlike Wikipedia, which has nothing. I repeat: there is absolutely no legal problem with the image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why you mentioned the U.S. govt. It has nothing to do with them and no one said it did. My last response, I think and hope. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Have it your way. Haber 03:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How about Enos the space chimp? Chimpanzee Enos pictured wearing a space suit and lying in his flight couch as a handler holds his hands. He is being prepared for insertion into the Mercury-Atlas 5 capsule. This NASA public domain image is of Enos being instrumented for space flight http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/MERUNMAN/10073456.jpg

The image is public domain so it can be used. The image is of a chimp, which is the species closest to humans and featured largely in the personhood debate. The image clearly shows animal testing in action - it is not a shaved monkey sitting by itself. And the organization that conducted the testing is dern proud of it.

With respect to PETA and the image, yes PETA is legally banned from distributing it, but no one else is, and there is no legal problem or potential with the current image. I just think animal testing should have an image that shows animal testing. --Animalresearcher 17:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Public Opinions on Animal Testing

Note: introduced for comment here. The page repeatedly refers to "controversy", and there are multiple public opinion polls from the USA and Britain on the topic.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research used a HART poll [7] in 2005 which asked American subjects to choose a statement they agree with more. The first statement was "Animal research is inhumane and unnecessary. Many lab animals endure painful experiments in cramped/dirty conditions. Animal research can be replaced with modern alternatives such as computer simulations and it can be dangerous, as results in animals are not comparable to those in humans." The second statement was "U.S. places strict regulations on treatment of research animals, scientific community is working hard to develop alternatives to animal research and already uses some alternatives. However, the most reliable tests use animals because they most closely duplicate complex interactions that occur in humans." 56% agreed with the second statement more, compared to 27% who agreed more with the first.

In Great Britain, more than 70% of those surveyed in a Telegraph/YouGov poll "accepted that experimentation on animals was sometimes essential because alternative methods were unavailable." [8] This poll was published in June 2006. The increased public favoritism relative to older polls was attributed to public concern that animal testing would simply move out of Great Britain, and that more than three quarters of the public believes "the more fanatical activists can justifiably be defined as 'terrorists'". Older polls came closer to a 50/50 split on similar issues.

One such older poll was conducted in Great Britain by ICM, which was commissioned by RDS, a government agency that advocates for animal experiments [9]. Do you agree or disagree with the use of animals in experiments to test new medicines? 50% Agree, 47% disagree, 3% don't know.

A more recent ICM poll was commissioned by BBC Newsnight and published in July 2006. [10] "Do you believe it is acceptable or not acceptable to use animals for medical research?" 57% responded that it was completely, or quite acceptable, whereas 40% responded it was either not very acceptable or not at all acceptable.

A MORI poll [11] tracked public sentiment on animal testing in the UK from 1999 to 2002. They found the number of people who were conditional acceptors of animal testing rose from 84% to 90% over that time. A conditional acceptor has the four conditions of the experiment being for medical research purposes, into life threatening diseases, with no un-necessary suffering, and non-animal alternatives being used whenever possible.

However, these opinions are strongly subject to the wording used in polls. A BUAV poll carried out by TNS in 2003 found 76% of respondents thought the British Government “should, as a matter of principle, prohibit experiments on any live animals which cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”. [12]

--Animalresearcher 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: removed Doris Day animal league poll, it was about animal rights, and not about animal testing. Added repetitive MORI polls which may show drift in public sentiment. Came across reference to a TNS poll commissioned by BUAV that is strongly against any pain and suffering in animal testing, but I have not found any source that describes methodology or questions asked, which leaves me quite suspicious that the poll is being misrepresented. Anyone have a source that lists polling questions or methodology in the same way the HART, ICM, MORI, and Telegraph polls do? --Animalresearcher 12:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

AR, the template is about activists and groups that concentrate on animal rights, not people who support animal testing. That's why I added it at the end of the page under "alternatives" where it's arguably most appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

However, you specifically reject the idea that those who advocate FOR animal testing should be included in that template, and you removed those from the template after I added them. That seems awfully POV. The animal testing page is about animal testing, and not about animal liberation, and is especially not about marketing for animal liberation terrorists and blocking similar inclusion of advocates. Or is the appropriate solution for this matter for me to create an animal testing advocacy template and put it everyplace the animal liberation template exists? How is it NPOV to include a template of activists that only represent one point of view on an issue of controversy? --Animalresearcher 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The template provides relevant links about the animal liberation movement. I do not see who proponents of animal testing would fit under that specific title. By all means create a template, but remember it has to be relevant to the article you place it on. The template fits in the section it is placed in on this page.

Also, comments such as is especially not about marketing for animal liberation terrorists is not acceptable under our policies.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But AR's point here is that the template should be removed from this article, animal testing is as relevant as animal welfare to the AL template (which is titled incorrectly as animal rights by SV logic) and for whatever reason AW was not allowed in the template. I completely concurr that the template, as it stands is very POV and does serve as a platform for promoting an animal rights view while not necessarily providing a useful navigational aid, which is what it is meant to be. Nrets 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AR, animal testing is one of the big animal rights issues, so it's appropriate for the animal rights template to be on the page. As for the content of the template, it's the practise to include groups/people/issues of most concern to the topic. There are no pro-testing groups or people who are of concern to the animal rights movement. In the same way, we don't include Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis on the Jew or Holocaust template. (Not that I'm not comparing animal testers to neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers: I use those examples only to illustrate the point.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no pro-testing groups or people who are of concern to the animal rights movement. If that is the case, why do they keep on threatening them with physical violence and bombs? Your analogy of pro-animal research groups and writers to holocaust deniers is not only offensive and inappropriate but it is completely ludicrous. People who support animal testing directly address the points and concerns brought up by AR activists, and AR activists often directly counter the arguments of the pro-research position, thus they are directly relevant to each other. Nrets 17:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, please read my posts before answering them in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the argument that testing advocates are not relevant to animal rights, whereas animal liberation is relevant to animal testing, to be quite specious. Perhaps you can explain further SV? Almost all animal testing advocacy is a specific response to animal rights activism.--Animalresearcher 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Testing advocates have no bearing on the concept of animal rights, its development, its teaching, or the movement. The template is only for those directly involved in the issue, for reasons of space as much as anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I will plan to develop an animal testing advocacy template to accompany the page, I find it somewhat POV that someone interested in animal testing at Wikipedia could link directly to Jerry Vlasak but cannot link directly to Colin Blakemore. Also, I am somewhat concerned that non-violent activists are being associated with violent terrorist activists in the animal liberation template. --Animalresearcher 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try not to be POV. Do not use the term 'violent terrorist activists' as I find that to be incorrect - I know of only one actual act of violence that has come from animal rights people in the last 10 years...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:55, 29 September 2006 (Uhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_testing&action=edit&section=5TC)

Localzuk, you should go over the animal liberation activist template. First, there is Greg Avery, who founded SHAC (a group recognized as a terrorist organization by USA and Britain), and whose wife and housemate are doing time in prison for attacking a 75 year old grandmother because of the sticker on her car! Next, we have David Barbarash, a press officer for ALF, which is a terrorist organization as recognized by USA and British governments. Moving on to Rod Coronado, convicted of arson (1995) costing Michigan State over $100,000 and destroying research data. Barry Horne's firebombings have cost millions of pounds of damage - up through 1997. Ronnie Lee is also a convicted arsonist, who now coordinates ALF activism cells (ALF is a terrorist organization according to the FBI). Keith Mann was described by the Guardian as engaging in a "terrorist-style sabotage campaign against the meat industry." He spent 11 years in prison, and violated his parole by trespassing and stealing from animal testing groups and went back to jail. Jerry Vlasak is the North American ALF press office contact, and openly advocates killing of animal researchers such as myself because of the resulting effect of saving animal lives. Ronnie Webb issued a statement during Horne's hunger strike threatening to kill six prominent British researchers, whom he named in the statement. Of course, he was just the messenger for the animal liberation militia... Animal Rights activism is at all time highs, with multiple acts of vandalism, theft, arson, bombings, and harassment every year. I fail to see there is anything to be gained by referring to a terrorist as an "activist" when they leave a firebomb on the front porch of an innocent 75 year old woman, as ALF did earlier this year in an attempt to intimidate my colleagues. I do not think all animal rights activist are justifiably classified as advocating or participating in violent terrorist activism, but in the animal liberation template THE VAST MAJORITY of the individuals listed can truly be called terrorists.--Animalresearcher 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AR, SHAC is not regarded as a terrorist group by any govt that I'm aware of. The ALF has been named as a "terrorist threat" by the FBI only. The Avery incident involved the woman being shouted at, so far as I know, not attacked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As one further note, I think it can be safely stated that these terrorist acts sway public opinion away from animal rights, and that an intelligent animal rights advocate would try to clearly dissociate non-violent from violent activism. FBR keeps a list of violent activities committed in the name of animal rights/liberation. http://www.fbresearch.org/AnimalActivism/violence.htm As you can see, there is FAR FAR more than one event in the last ten years - literally hundreds and hundreds. --Animalresearcher 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! What a list of mis-informed garbage. First, SHAC is not recognised as a terrorist group in any country, second they are not a group. Next, they are not doing time for anything violent - they shouted at someone, which is far from violence in my eyes. The ALF isn't recognised as a terrorist group by the UK - only one person at the FBI said it. I don't see how arson = terrorism. Jerry Vlasak is a press officer, and made a comment which was taken out of context by The Observer. (BTW. Both the Guardian and Observer are ran by the same people, and are both known for their very anti-animal rights stance). As you stated, Ronnie Webb issued a statement - as he runs a press office.

You still haven't shown anything violent, damaging property is not violence - it is criminal damage...-Localzuk^(talk) 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

ALF just scared a colleague of mine, through intimidation and firebombing threats, into abandoning his research. Either ALF or SHAC beat the Brian Cass to a pulp in Britain - hardly non-violent activism despite the public statements of the two. The following link makes it clear that the FBI considers it a point of legal record that they believe SHAC USA is a domestic terrorism threat. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress04/lewis051804.htm Jerry Vlasak was denied entry to the UK because Britain considers him a terrorist. My colleague surrendered to Vlasak via email, and that assured him and his family safety from ALF. If that doesn't make Vlasak an essential and active member of a terrorist organization I don't know what does. These organizations, SHAC and ALF, engage in a pattern of intimidation, threats, theft, vandalism, bombings, and arson that instills terror in their targets. Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political goals". It is really quite a different perspective when you are the target of the terrorist activities, and not someone who favors their philosophical approach. --Animalresearcher 21:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"My colleague surrendered to Vlasak via email, and that assured him and his family safety from ALF. If that doesn't make Vlasak an essential and active member of a terrorist organization I don't know what does." Ringach sent his capitulation to a couple of people, and the message was subsequently posted to public listservs. Whether he is "assured" of safety or not, and in either case, whether this has any connection to Vlasak having been included in the original message, is speculation.Rbogle 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you have some mis-conceptions. Vlasak runs a press office, he releases press releases and passes information around. He takes no active part in any direct action - everything would continue just the same whether he was there or not. That reference does not mention SHAC directly as a terrorist threat, only that they are a 'sub-group of extremist animal rights' and discusses their tactics. Also, Vlasak was denied entry to the UK, not based on him being a 'terrorist' but based on a weak argument that his presence "would not be conducive to the public good' according to David Blunkett, the disgraced MP.

Also, that definition of terrorism would also cover what the UK and US governments are doing around the world...

Anyway, my complaint is the use of the word 'violent'. I know of at least 4 people in the UK who have been killed as a result of anti-animal rights behaviour, and countless others injured, and hospitalised as well. I know of one person, Brian Cass, who has actually been attacked and hurt...-Localzuk^(talk) 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider the word violent to be restricted to things that cause people harm (nor is that its definition). A massive firebombing and arson spree that could easily kill would be considered violent to me, even if it did not actually kill. I would be quite hesitant to justify the actions of the highly illegal activities of SOME, not all, animal rights activists, because some of them have died and/or been injured in their acts of lawlessness. There would be no ALF without a press office, Vlasak contributes materially to ALF's cause, and he will go to jail for running their press office IF he continues after Congress passes the new animal research protection act which will consider him to give material aid to ALF. Besides, Britain will not allow him to enter their country, he is going to trial for crimes committed in Canada, and the USA considers him a terrorist. SHAC's activities very specifically target people to try to intimidate their entirely legal professional decisions based on SHAC's political agenda. And even if they refrain from violence MOST of the time (Cass), their actions are entirely intended to put the threat of violence in the mind of their target. Again, terrorism. My point was that the vast majority of those on the animal liberation template are either 1) Part of an organization considered to take part in terrorist acts by the USA, Britain, or both, 2) have been convicted of arson or bombings to advance their political agenda, or 3) have engaged in direct violent acts against people or organizations who are no threat to them. And if I were an animal rights activist who had wanted to engage in dialog and peaceful protest (a Martin Luther King Jr of animal rights), I would be genuinely worried about the association the public makes between animal rights activism and most of those listed on the animal liberation template. They are mostly criminals with convictions on violent offenses (I include arson and bombing as violent), or public members of groups considered by Britain, the USA, or both to be terrorists. The US and UK governments make a clear attempt to avoid non-threatening targets. HLS and its affiliated companies are no threat, whatsoever, to SHAC. Anyway, the point of all that was that I think it would benefit both animal rights advocates and animal testing advocates if a clear distinction was made between those groups that participate in entirely legal lawful protests, and those that use intimidation and threats against non-threatening targets as their modus operandi. --Animalresearcher 22:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was your choice of example, not mine. To counter that, if you look at Template:Communism you will see that there are links to anti-communism and capitalism. Nrets 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"is good or bad science"

"Bad science" implies a methodolical criticism, and I'm wondering if this topic sentence conflates ethics and scientific procedure. A nuclear test (to pick something in the news today) may be "bad science" in the former sense but "good science" in the latter. This might also violate NPOV slightly, through an intermediate view: "could be good, good be bad, not sure". The intro is quite precise and NPOV otherwise (not sure about the pic), and gives due weight where it belongs. This sentence just sort of sticks out in reading. Marskell 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tim, what's meant by "bad science" is that animal testing is said by opponents to constitute poor scientific method, as well as being unethical. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of reference to ALF as terrorists

Localzuk and SlimVirgin removed the reference to ALF as a terrorist group from the UCLA section of the controversy section, citing that it was included on the ALF wiki page. If that is a relevant criteria, why cannot the Huntington Life Sciences, Covance, Britches, and Cambridge portions of the controvery section be substantially shortened? Each of them needlessly rehashes items present on their main article pages, complete with pictures that are also re-hashed and take up a lot of space on an already very long wiki page. I am just wondering why shouldn't the other portions of the page that are redundant with linked-main-articles be shortened substantially?--Animalresearcher 17:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is in the best interest of those editors to hide information that they do not agree with, and to highlight that which supports their point of view. It seems very relevant that the ALF has been named a terrorist group, particularily when we are talking about an act of terrorism commited in their name. Plus it is the first instance where the ALF is mentioned in the article. I'm probably going to be accused here of not "assuming good faith", but many of the actions of these editors do not support their stated claims that they "edit from both sides of the issue", in fact an unbiased observer would cite quite the opposite. And this makes it extremely hard to assume good faith. Nrets 17:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to assume good faith, and assume that means that my suggestion should be take forward. And I would be happy to do it. --Animalresearcher 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on Nrets talk page about this little rant. Now, the issue at hand:

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. I hope this helps remove the unfounded ideas and prevents uncivil comments such as those made by nrets.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, Localzuk and I often edit from both POVs, as do Rockpocket and Animalresearcher, but I have never seen you do it, so with respect you're the last person on this page who can accuse others of POV editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Animal researcher, the reason the categorization of the ALF is inappropriate in this article is that criticism of a person or group has to be presented in context. If we link to the ALF article, people can read there that they have been designated as a "terrorist threat" (not a terrorist organization) by one department of one government, but not by anyone else in the world. They can also read there that the ALF formally rejects violence, and what the ALF's definition of violence is, and they can read about some of the arguably good things the ALF has done.

It is POV to pick out that one fact of all the facts that could be presented about the ALF and stick it in a sentence here. Instead of "The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the Molotov cocktail. In January of 2005 it was formally recognized as a terrorist organization by the Department of Homeland Security" we could add "The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the Molotov cocktail. As a movement, they engage only in violence against property, not persons." You would object to the latter, and rightly so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence. [13] --Animalresearcher 10:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the FBI. How is that related to this article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no one else who defines terrorism organizations apart from law enforcement groups. The UCLA section is about a lethal-force bomb that targetted a UCLA animal researcher and was accidentally left on the porch of an elderly woman. This intimidated another UCLA animal researcher enough that he quit his life's work over fears for his small children and wife. Clearly a terrorist act by any definition. --Animalresearcher 00:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are starting to get into original research territory there Ar. Please see Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism our policy on how we define groups and people as 'terrorist'. We have to specifically attribute it to the organisation that makes that claim. For example, the ALF aren't a terrorist group in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, or anywhere other than the USA. So stating 'the ALF are a terrorist group' is not a world view. Also, as SV states, within the context of the article it is not relevant. Please see my earlier comment about why.-Localzuk^(talk) 06:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion elsewhere, and I forget the details, but the ALF has not been categorized as a terrorist organization in the way, say, Hamas has, where assets are allowed to be seized and so on. This is just a domestic labeling by the FBI, which was presumably done to allow them to become involved in minor incidents such as spraying graffiti; another editor suggested that having the ALF labeled as a "terrorist threat" might allow the FBI to conduct certain kinds of surveillance that might otherwise not be allowed.

I think you weaken the meaning of the word "terrorist" when you start extending it to criminal acts such as damage to property. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A lethal-force bomb left on someone's front porch is a direct threat of murder. I think it trivializing to continue to hide behind the guise of property damage when direct threats of murder are used to effect action. Is it OK to threaten murder to get scientists to stop using animals, but verboten to use actual murder? I will review the wiki policy on the word terrorism, I was unaware of it, thanks for the pointer localzuk.--Animalresearcher 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, strictly speaking, firebombs merit the classification as 'terrorism' under its original definition, but the word has come to mean somewhat more than just the use or threat of violence against people or property - hence the fights over whether there can be such a thing as state terrorism. So it would inappropriate of us to blanketly label the ALF as terrorists. On the other hand, I don't think we should accept their claims to be 'non-violent' at face value, a firebomb is a firebomb, it is a lot more than simple property damage. --Coroebus 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That is all your opinion, which is fine. However, if we are to report on these issues on WP we must do it from a neutral voice - so we must write it in such a way to remove opinion. On one hand we have the ALF's 'rules' which state they are non-violent and on the other we have various reports saying that they have been violent. We can only report what others have reported, not make links and conclusions based on this.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about something clearly inappropriate or unreferenced that was removed. The statement that ALF was classified as a terrorist group by the FBI came from one of the cited news articles on the UCLA incident - it was not something I went out of my way to find. And the removed statement clearly referenced the classification of ALF as terrorist to the FBI, sticking to WIKI policy on the word terrorism. ALF took credit for the brutal beating of Cass. Its policy statement about non-violence is simply fluff. Its press officers have no way to prevent anyone from taking action, and they will take credit for any action against animal testing. They happily took credit for leaving a lethal force bomb on an elderly lady's front porch, and for the beating of Cass, which makes it clear they have no real policy against violence. Removal of cited, verifiable, referenced material from an article without discussion is simply out of character for a WIKIPEDIA editor and still seems like a POV move to me (although it may not appear so to someone who prefers animal rights to animal researchers). --Animalresearcher 17:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(restart indent) You misunderstand what the ALF is. The ALF is a name. The Animal Liberation Press Office publishes actions that are carried out under this name which are compliant with the alf policy of non-violence. The ALF never claimed any responsibilty for the beating of Cass. I have never seen this claim made with a reference before. You have been told why the information was removed. It is not relevant to the context of this article and was placed in a random place. You have not shown any sign of good faith on your part. I have seen plenty coming from myself and SV, explaining things to you.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave Blenkinsop was jailed for the Cass attack, and prior attacks he has made have been claimed by ALF. ALF currently lists him as a "prisoner of conscience" despite the fact that he was jailed for actions that conflict with the ALF policy on non-violence. I fail to see how the removal of the terrorism link was not relevant to the context of the article. If I think that the entire controversy section is not relevant to animal testing, may I remove it? WIKI is not about removing things YOU don't think are relevant - it is about including all points of view in a verifiable cited referenced way. I do not think this falls under a failure of good faith either, I am perfectly content that SV thought her actions were consistent with WIKI policy, and I am perfectly content that I disagree with that assessment. The fact that major opponents of animal testing are classified as terrorism organizations by the FBI would seem to be extremely relevant to the controversy and activities advocating for and against animal testing. --Animalresearcher 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, but have you even read what the ALF is? Dave Blenkinsop may well have done things under the name 'ALF' before - but that doesn't mean he attacked Cass under it. Any claim he did is pure opinion. Also, the ALF doesn't list anyone as a 'prisoner of conscious', the Animal Liberation Press Office may do - but that organisation also publicises ARM actions too.

And regarding relevance, why are you getting so protective? I explained the reasons why it isn't relevant but you didn't comment on it. Information specifically about the ALF should be in the ALF article. What you are asking for is for any information on any subject, word or sentence be included in any loosely associated article - which is ridiculous.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Should then information about Covance be removed because it is already in the Covance article? How about SHAC, Cambridge, and Britches? Each has a complete WIKI article, they can be removed from the animal testing page with a sentence or two and a link to their own WIKI pages. The page is crammed for space, WIKIPEDIA already has all the information in those subsections and more, and the photos for those sections are re-used from their own WIKI pages also. The news reporter who reported on the UCLA molotov cocktail included the information that ALF was regarded as a terrorist group by the FBI, so I can see that a source not overtly biased also thinks this information is relevant to that incident. Why do you insist that removing it is appropriate policy when it is generally considered that removing cited referenced verifiable material from a WIKI page without discussion is a pretty strong statement?--Animalresearcher 00:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

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:

^ Abramowitz, Michael. "White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects", The Washington Post, October 15, 2006.

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)

POV tag

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 [14] 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)

Request to remove information

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)

Pets

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" [15]. 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)

Still unhappy with this:

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)

NPOV

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)

Rewrite paragraph two of intro

As currently stated

==============

The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about ethical issues and the scientific necessity of using animal models. The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American organization that "promot[es] public understanding and support for humane and responsible animal research," writes that "[a]nimal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health," ^[1] and that many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys). ^[2]^[3]^[4] Whether animal research was necessary to achieve these results has been questioned by animal rights groups ^[5] and other critics of the animal model. ^[6].

Proposed

========

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 this statement into the Animal Welfare Act which regulates animal research:"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". The British government similarly convened a Select Committee to weigh evidence from all points of view and wrote "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge."^[7]. 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"^[8].

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^[10]. Opponents of animal research argue multiple ethical lines. One argument is that consideration of pain and suffering for animals is equivalent to the considerations for humans^[11]. 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^[12].

==========

The issue I hope to address in this rewrite it to include statements from policymakers who have listened to both sides, weighed the evidence, and made these statements as representatives of the people. As far as I am concerned, FBR presents a highly biased viewpoint, as does BUAV and PETA and RDS. But this is a special case in which the representative governments have already listened to all viewpoints and made official policy statements, which I feel merits its inclusion in the intro instead of the "present all viewpoints" policy of wikipedia. Of course, arguments from both sides are already included in more detail lower in the page. This proposed changes is large enough that it would invoke a lot of polarizing reversion and debate if done directly, I propose discussion and possibly editing of this proposed paragraph two on the discussion page first. --Animalresearcher 13:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The debate shouldn't distract us from building a better encyclopedia. Be bold. Haber 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would consider it somewhat disrespectful of the vast efforts poured into this page by all points of view to change paragraph two in a substantial way without inviting discussion for a few days...I certainly make every attempt to hold to WIKI policies, but that has not stopped me in the past from making errors along those lines. So I will not make such a large change without at least inviting comments from others who edit the page. --Animalresearcher 14:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

AR, can I remind you that the current intro has no anti-testing paragraph and is therefore already skewed in favor of animal testing? Given that, it shouldn't be made any more pro-testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this edit is better? I hope, if we can get this second paragraph ironed out, to go on to offer a more balanced consideration of the ethics in the third paragraph. The second paragraph considers evidence on possible benefits, the third on ethics and morality. For that reason I omitted ethical arguments in this version. I edited directly on the proposed paragraph above in case that is not clear. --Animalresearcher 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening image

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)

Reversion wars

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? [16] 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)

Testing For and Against

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)

Testing or Research?

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: [17] [18].-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)

Proposed paragraph two and three rewrite

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)

YouTube links

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)

Writing

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. [19] [20]. 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" [21]

2. "PETA lobbies companies and government agencies to provide funding for research and development" [22]

3. "BUAV lobbies for acceptance of vital amendments to eliminate animal testing" [23]

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" [24] 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' [25] [26] (interviews) [27]. 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' [28] and 'Nature' [29] 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) [30], they provide educational material (like PETA and BUAV) to inform the general public [31], they sell merchandise bearing messages of support for their philosophical position [32] 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) [33]. 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. [34] 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)

^ "FBR's Position on Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research.
^ "Nobel Prizes The Payoff from Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research.
^ "Benefits of animal research", AALAS
^ "Survey of Nobel Prize winners", SIMR
^ ^a ^b ^c "Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs", People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
^ "FAQ insulin", Americans for Medical Advancement
^ House of Lords, Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, 4.14, 2002
^ [35]
^ ^a ^b "Chapter two: Ethics", Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament, July 16, 2002.
^ Posner-Singer debate
^ [Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer]
^ [The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan]
^ [36]
^ Posner-Singer debate
^ [Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer]
^ [The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan]

[Abramowitz-1] Abramowitz, Michael. "White House Upbeat About GOP Prospects", The Washington Post, October 15, 2006.

[fbr1-2] "FBR's Position on Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research.

[fbr2-3] "Nobel Prizes The Payoff from Animal Research", Foundation for Biomedical Research.

[aalas-4] "Benefits of animal research", AALAS

[nobelsurvey-5] "Survey of Nobel Prize winners", SIMR

[peta1-6] "Animals Used for Experimentation FAQs", People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

[faqinsulin-7] "FAQ insulin", Americans for Medical Advancement

[8] House of Lords, Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, 4.14, 2002

[9] [35]

[lords2-10] "Chapter two: Ethics", Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures Report, United Kingdom Parliament, July 16, 2002.

[11] Posner-Singer debate

[12] [Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer]

[13] [The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan]

[14] [36]

[15] Posner-Singer debate

[16] [Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer]

[17] [The Case for Animal Rights, by Tom Regan]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]