Talk:Animal testing/Archive 7

Great article

Sorry, I know this doesn't contribute, but I'm really impressed that this controversial topic has such a well written and well sourced article!! Brilliant! 81.179.113.235 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with other articles

The intro needs to focus on Animal testing. I have simplified it to be less about politicians and activists, and more about the activity. All content that didn't make the revised intro was saved and moved into the article.

If anyone would like to revert these changes, please explain to me what makes Animal testing distinct from other controversial, legal, and debatably "harmful" activities such as Abortion, Seal hunting, Logging, Tobacco industry, Petroleum industry, Whaling, Gambling, Alcoholic beverage etc. All of these articles are more straightforward and encyclopedic, and don't mire the introduction with controversy. Haber 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please see WP:LEAD which states that the introduction should be a summary of all information in the article - a mini version if you will. Removing the details of controversy means that a significant chunk of the article is not adequately covered in the lead. If those articles do not suitable cover the full content of the articles then that is a flaw in each of those, not this one. Yes, our lead is by no means ideal but removing all controversy details from it is not an improvement.

Also, the controversial article notice is perfectly fine as this article is very prone to revert warring and all major edits should be discussed here first.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Nothing in WP:LEAD says that article introductions should be 2/3 controversy and inconsistent with every other article. This is why Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was created, to prevent obstructionist, agenda-driven, wikilawyers from twisting the rules to justify bizarre situations. Now let's lay off the WP:xxx blanky for three seconds and see if we can be reasonable. Haber 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I by and large like the new version, the material is still there, the intro is concise about the topic, and mentions the controversy. The article is perhaps 1/3 on controversy, perhaps an additional sentence or two on the controversy would be merited? It just seems, well, shortchanged. I can fully agree that as the article is roughly 1/3 controversy, the prior intro focussed too much on it. --Animalresearcher 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to edit it if you see room for improvement. Haber 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Haber, but there is no consensus on your radical change. Stop else you will likely be blocked for disruption. We are supposed to be creating a introduction/lead that covers all aspects of the article - not just what you think it should cover. WP:LEAD was quoted at you for a reason - because it is a guideline that has been reached by consensus in order to create good articles. I'll do a bit of quoting and explaining: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. This is quite simple to understand - it means we should be summarising the article and its controversies. Deleting large chunks of text from the lead is not a valid use of WP:IAR. This article is about a very controversial subject and the lead should reflect that. Not just provide a single line of information about the fact that it is a controversial subject.

The lead should not be a single paragraph - for an article this size it should be at least 3.

Finally, you have shown severe lack of good faith here, have been uncivil and have gone into a personal attack (calling us agenda driven). Do not do this again.

Unilateral changes on controversial articles such as this are discouraged due to the high probability of edit warring - something you have caused.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is roughly 62% non-controversy, and 38% controversy, if you dump the controversy text sections into an editor, and the non-controversy sections, and compare size. The current introduction is 70% controversy, which demonstrates there is roughly two times too much of the introduction given to controversy, it is out of balance with the article and in conflict with WP:LEAD. If it is to be three paragraphs long, there should be one paragraph, roughly equal in size to the other two, on controversy. The real problem with saying nothing can be substituted without discussion is that the editors rarely comment constructively when discussion on the introductory paragraphs is initiated, and simply revert the changes when they are made. This has occurred MULTIPLE times in the case of this page. Now, can we have a constructive dialog on the introduction, or not? If we discuss changes here, WILL THE EDITORS MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS? And if such proposed changes are met with silence, WILL THE EDITORS THEN REVERT THEM WHEN THEY ARE MOVED TO THE ARTICLE? --Animalresearcher 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AR. Localzuk, your whining and your empty threats are quite comical. You demand that editors come to the talk page to kiss your hand before they make any edits, then you and SV either ignore it, dismiss it, change the subject, or spew wiki code hoping to hit on some violation, often ignoring inconvenient policies and guidelines yourselves. The rules are not put there to stifle discussion and dissent. You cannot violate 4/5 pillars and then hide behind the code of conduct and hope that that insulates you from criticism forever. It's quite obvious to any reasonable person that you both want to stop all animal research, and you're willing to manipulate the system to defend this "stable" version of the article. If calling that an agenda makes me disruptive or in violation of AGF then go ahead and report me. But remember that one of the first things I heard when I started to work on this article was, "You're trying to invent a problem", from SV. I can shrug it off and defend my ideas without calling for the hall monitor. Can you? Why don't you address why you think the intro should be 70% controversy, without resorting to an obvious distortion of WP:LEAD? Haber 13:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, hopefully, dealt with your incivility on your talk page. Now, to constructive criticism of what you want to do. Your proposal shortens our current 3 paragraph lead into a paragraph and a line. This removes any summary of the article - for example, the 'notable criticism' is now compressed to a single line saying it is a controversial subject, which is not enough by far. I agree that it needs reworking but I would be much happier staying with what we have than the overly shortened version you are proposing.

You are proposing this change, SV and me are not - we have told you what we think is wrong with it but I do not feel that I have the time to make my own proposal. So, if you want the proposal to be accepted then you need to change it and gain consensus.

Also note that the use of guidelines and policies to back up our arguments isn't done to be obstuctive, it is done in order to maintain a high quality site and improve things.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We agree that the lead is not perfect. I have time to work on it, but you do not. Until you do have time, what you would like is that I run all changes by you for your approval or rejection, and unquestioningly accept your final decision. How about another way? Instead of monitoring and reverting, why don't you try leaving the article alone for a little bit of time? See what happens. I guarantee Wikipedia won't fall apart without you. Haber 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why must you be so confrontational? I have explained that your version removed too much info and that I preferred the old version, and apparantly so did SV. I have shown you why we discuss before we edit - now you just seem to be trying to pick a fight for no reason.

Your new revision is much better, however it polarises the pro and anti parts of the controversy rather than treating it as a single subject. I will not revert this one as I personally think it is a much better version than the prior version and your old suggested version.

Also, you provide a specific example of an organisation, including a quote, as to why animal testing is good but then only provide vague summary for the 'why animal testing is bad' bit. I will try and improve on this when I have some time in the next few days.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little as a compromise. I removed that FBR is pro-research bceause it suggests that others are anti-research. They are pro-testing. I restored the cutline. I restored the way the FBR thing was written because it left the Nobel Prize part unattributed. We also need more on the anti-testing position as Localzuk says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're forcing the other side to adopt your terminology. Never say we don't compromise. Haber 14:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? The article is about animal testing - so stating they are pro-testing is perfectly fine...-Localzuk^(talk) 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Haber's point is that the usage of the word "testing" already favors a specific POV, and we're compromising on its usage throughout, including the title of the article. Nrets 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Localzuk, is that "animal testing" is often used to refer to a subset of the entire body of animal experimentation (i.e., in a very literal sense, "testing" is often used do describe contract drug and toxicology testing procedures, while "experimentation" also includes the pure and applied use in universities and R&D). Not understanding this distinction is why you hear references to the "animal testing industry" and then claim notable sources describe all animal experimentation (including those in chartible institutions) as part of an industry. Not only is this misleading, but by using the low-value blanket term "testing" to cover all types of experimiment we risk introducing POV by misrepresenting the words of others. Of course, its this very reason the the antis prefer to use the word "testing" because its much harder to demonise people who are, for example, doing simple breeding experiments to investigate genetics. Rockpocket 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that personally, I have used the term 'animal experiments' and 'animal testing'. I have never used 'animal research' and have never really heard that at all either. I think one of our problems on this page is that we need to define the scope of what should be included. Once we have decided that we can choose the name that is most commonly used to describe the subject. As it stands, I think we will continually end up in this debate. So...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This disagreement seems to be rooted in US/UK language differences more than anything very substantive. In the US, animal testing, animal research, animal experimentation, and vivisection are synonyms in common parlance outside the industry itself. Research, experimentation, and vivisection are taken as more encompassing terms that subsume testing, which is commonly used specifically in reference to live using animals in any tests associated with a substance (drug or otherwise), and less frequently to a device. Covance, for example, is commonly differentiated as a testing lab while UC San Francisco is a research lab. Rbogle 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The FBR is no more "pro-testing" than NARAL is "pro-abortion". Calling them pro-testing or pro-abortion is the terminology of the anti and suggests that they value the process more than the result. The FBR simply wants biomedical research. It's in their name. Haber 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't campaign on behalf of biomedical research; they campaign for animal testing. You could just have left the description as it was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to tell them what they campaign for? The FBR wants biomedical research to be done the best way possible, whether with animals or without. You could even say they are anti-testing in certain instances, because they recommend the use of alternatives when available. All things being equal, the FBR says don't do animal research. Haber 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at their webpage, it's what they say about themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope

As I said above, we need to define the exact scope of this article. I think that we should aim this specific article (and its title staying the same) at the subject of animal testing from an 'invasive experiments' pov. We could also have a 'animal research' page that discusses the higher level subject and have this as a subpage of that? Thoughts?-Localzuk^(talk) 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But using "invasive experiments" as a criteria is not particularly useful, LZ. Scientists would never separate their science into 'invasive' vs. 'non-invasive'. For example one study could have behavioral assays on a particular strain of mouse, combined with histological and biochemical analyses of their tissues. Would that be within the scope of the article? As RP points out, pure and applied research can also be invasive but not considered 'testing' per se. I also don't think 'animal experimentation' is good either, because it implies that the point of the endeavor is to experiment on animals, not to answer a scientific question. 'Animal research' better reflects the fact that the experiments are used as part of a larger research enterprise. RP outlined the three types of research done on animals, and I think that is a good way to split the page if we wanted to do that. But, as it stands, I don't think it is worth splitting, since much of the types of research are intertwined, especially when it comes to the regulation of the research. Nrets 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Animal research" is ambiguous, so I'd be opposed to that. "Animal testing" is understood by everyone, including the average reader, which is who this article is aimed at. No matter what the tests are, substances or theories are being tested on animals before being used, put into practise, or developed further.

LZ, what would the higher level subject be? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is not understood by everyone. My first impression upon reading this article was that it was about cosmetic and toxicological testing, not scientific research. And I think many other editors have commented the same in this page. If you would like I can dig out all the examples. It seems like the editors who are mainly opposed to changing the name are the ones who tend to support the anti-animal research POV. Again, it may be a British vs. American usage issue, but RP is also in the UK and seems to agree with using a different term. Nrets 02:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well my point is more that the term 'animal research' is used to define a subject that covers things such as watching animals in the wild etc... whereas animal experimentation/testing is more specific to actual laboratory testing (my mention of 'invasive' was just poor choice of words). As the article stands it is too long and we are constantly having arguments with regards to the name - and if you look back you can see that people complained that the term 'animal testing' didn't cover enough.

My proposal is simply that the parts about laboratory type experiments remain under the heading 'animal testing' and a more all encompassing article be created for the rest and the animal testing one being a subpage.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you say you engage in animal testing in the USA, people immediately assume you do toxicological tests on animals. The term is completely misunderstood by the majority of english speaking readers of the page, which alone I would feel warrants changing it. The first five words make it clear than animal research is interchangeable, why not move it? --Animalresearcher 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Google gets around the same number of hits for either term; nearly 1.5 million for animal research and nearly 1.6 million for animal testing. Given the numbers, there's no reason to change a long-standing title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That argument is a classic misdirect. You've simply avoided the issue by bringing up a point that is not related. We are not talking about choosing between two different titles because of their popularity irrespective of meaning. We are talking about choosing between two different titles BECAUSE they have different meanings. The population of the USA is 300 million, UK is 60 million, so the title is misleading to five times more english speakers than those to whom it is appropriate. However, people on both sides of the pond use the term "animal experiments" to refer to exactly the same thing. Wouldn't that be wonderful if we could choose something appropriately titled for both UK and USA readers? --Animalresearcher 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have a redirect under laboratory animal. Wouldn't it make more sense to move the detailed section about animals (numbers, type etc) there instead of a redirect? Rockpocket 02:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

intro proposals

Request permission for the following:

1) Caption to Enos pic - maintain correct grammar around "insertion"

2) Replace "non-human animal" with "animal" (Understood. See Animal)

3) Replace "purpose bred" with "bred specifically for research purposes" (purpose bred is jargon)

4) Replace "Opponents of animal testing strongly oppose" with "Opponents of animal testing want to reduce or abolish the practice" (please look carefully at how uninformative and redundant the first sentence is. If you have a better idea, let's hear it but no more reverts.)

5) Change "that it is bad science" to "scientifically unnecessary". (for word economy and because "bad science" is jargon)

6) Clean up paragraph about FBR, and remove awkward brackets "[a]nimal". The statement is sourced and correct. The encyclopedia is full of factual statements and footnotes are usually sufficient. Haber 02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: 5. They don't only say it's unnecessary. They also say it is bad science. Separate points. Re: 6. [a]nimal isn't awkward; it is standard and you shouldn't change quotes. The paragraph doesn't need clean up. It needs to be fully attributed to FBR, or whatever the source is, and you keep removing the attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you ok with 1-4? Haber 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what 1 means, but I'm fine with it in principle. Go ahead and make the change. 2, I'd prefer non-human, but I'll go along with animal. 3, I prefer the shorter phrase, but again I'll go along with the longer one. 4, I prefer to keep "strongly oppose," and I know of no opponents who merely want to reduce. They strongly oppose the practise, they strongly oppose any of the arguments in favor of the practise, and they want to see it abolished entirely, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Haber's point is that it is redundant to say that "opponents strongly oppose". Nrets 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Sorry, I missed that; it was a remnant of "opponents strongly contest these views," until we removed the views. I've fixed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

4 looks good, though I can't resist noting that not all opponents want animal research abolished entirely. Peter Singer is an example. Haber 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposed changes, especially 4. As far as 5 goes, how about saying "poor scientific practice" as opposed to "bad science" which, I agree, is jargon. Although the argument never did make sense to me, since they claim animal models are too different from humans to be useful, but then propose alternatives like cultured cell lines and computer models. Nrets 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim animals aren't similar enough to us to have our moral rights, but somehow are similar enough to use in experiments. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Except I don't think our moral rights are a product of our genes... Nrets 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In a sense you do. The beings with human genes are allowed to have moral rights, in your view. Others not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely true, as mice with human transgenes don't suddenly obtain an elevated moral status ;) Rockpocket 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Only because they haven't yet been liberated. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The page was very long so I archived, but some of the posts were quite recent (though I think dealt with); feel free to undo in whole or in part. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

(copied from SV talk page) Not all animals used in scientific procedures are killed. Almost all that are killed are euthanized. By law specific exceptions must be made not to euthanized animals in scientific procedures, and this portion of animal welfare law is particularly inflexible. Yet you insist on putting the words killed and not euthanized in the introduction to animal testing, reverting changes from euthanized to killed. As a matter of fact, there is no official count of animal deaths in testing in the USA, as only animals used are tracked. I don't see the content suffers either from removing it or from changing it from killed to euthanized, and insisting using your editorial position at wikipedia on including it and insisting on using the word killed is POV, you might as well change it to brutally murdered. --Animalresearcher 11:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear example of POV editing. Animalresearcher has strongly argued at PETA that PETA killed, not euthanized, animals in its care whose bodies were found to have been disposed of in a local dumpster, which attracted criminal charges againt the employees who put them there. Yet here, he argues that we must use the word "euthanized."

The phrase is not "euthanized" or "brutually murdered" or "done to death" or "sent to the other side" or "shown mercy" or "cruelly disposed of." The word is "killed," plain and simple. The reasons they are killed are many and varied; and different sides of the debate disagree as to whether it was necessary or how much "mercy" was shown. To use the phrase "euthanized" suggests it was for the animals' own good, and that it was necessary.

As for the figures, all show that the numbers used and numbers killed are almost the same. Very few animals are re-used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I used the term killed to refer to one specific instance in which the animals were illegally killed, and the people who performed the killing were not certified to perform the procedure in the state in which they did it, and had no veterinary training. The PETA page still refers to the "euthanasia" performed by PETA veterinarians at their shelter, which is an instance in which people WITH appropriate veterinary training performed legal euthanasia, and we are assured there is a reasonable control on the ending of life being done in the most humane way possible. The PETA employees who were indicted are indicted on multiple counts of "animal cruelty" associated with their death spree. The term, in that instance, is not being used in a POV way, I argued that multiple major news sources refered to the instance as "killing" while still refering to the actions taken by veterinarians at PETA's shelter as "euthanasia". This consistency is not being transferred to this page, If we take the same arguments over to the PETA page, we can simply change EVERY instance of "euthanasia" to "killing", which would of course be ludicrous. I ask, merely, for the words "and subsequently killed" on the first lines to be changes to "and subsequently euthanized". Regulation over the ending of animal life in experimentation is extremely tightly controlled, with very little tolerance for error. Of course, if scientific merit depends on not using humane euthanasia, it would not need to be used, --Animalresearcher 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just sniping here, but the above claim: "Regulation over the ending of animal life in experimentation is extremely tightly controlled, with very little tolerance for error" is more a claim of tenent than a claim of fact. According to the USDA IG's office's most recent audit of APHIS, oversight of animal research in the US is rife with problems. In light of evidence to the contrary (like the recently disclosed long-term problems at CDC), claims that anything occurring in the animal labs is tightly controlled is misleading or ignorant. Taking AR at his or her word, it is entirely possible that the shouted claim: BUT I AM UNAWARE IN SEVERAL DECADES OF PERFORMING ANIMAL RESEARCH OF THIS EVER HAPPENING could be true. I've run into a number of cases of researchers having no idea what was going on just down the hall. We are currently investigating the deaths of sheep in decompression experiments. I suspect that most researchers at the institution have no idea that this is going on. Their ignorance is not evidence that all is well.Rbogle 00:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AR, the PETA case has not come to court, so you can't possibly know what happened. Similarly, your claim that "Regulation over the ending of animal life in experimentation is extremely tightly controlled, with very little tolerance for error" is a POV, and many would argue an absurd and demonstrably false claim. Your claims about "BUT I AM UNAWARE IN SEVERAL DECADES OF PERFORMING ANIMAL RESEARCH OF THIS EVER HAPPENING," is another POV, and we have no idea who you are. Please stop adding your own views to articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The arguments on the terminology on the PETA case exist in detail on the PETA discussion page. The real point of contention was that multiple major news sources carefully referred to the actions of the two PETA employees as "killing", while also mentioning that PETA euthanizes animals at its shelter.The subjects are indicted on dozens of counts of animal cruelty, specifically for their killing of the animals they had taken from the shelters. By law in the USA and UK, any killing of animals involved in experiments must be performed with euthanasia methods consistent with the AVMA standards. As I pointed out, the PETA page repeatedly refers to what their veterinarians do at their shelters as euthanasia, the term killing is used instead only for that one specific instance, and that instance is justified by consistency with multiple major news sources. Can you find ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that animals used in experiments are commonly killed in ways not conforming to euthanasia standards? --Animalresearcher 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow the PETA article, so am somewhat out of the loop, but I don't really have a huge problem with "killing" as long as it is evenly applied. "Euthanasia" means "good death" in Greek, so is something of a judgement. Animals are killed by cars, killed in slaughterhouses, killed by habitat destruction etc. It's a part of life. If it's done in the right way most people call it euthanasia. PETA shouldn't pretend, though, that they're the only people in the world capable of killing the right way. Haber 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought euthanasia refers to a regulated way of killing such that it avoided unnescessary suffering. I think in the context of animal testing, it is proper to use euthanasia rather than 'killed" since it is a lot more specific. Killed, could mean anything, euthanasia simplies that it is a regulated procedure, done according to guidelines and laws. So unless somebody is actually breaking the law by not following the established guidelines and protocols (which may happen but there is little evidence that this is the norm, despite SV's view), the correct ther is euthanized. Nrets 02:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with relying solely on legal context. In the U.S., 2000 AVMA defines euthanasia. Thinking internationally, are you sure you feel comfortable saying that an animal that is killed by a non-AVMA approved method is being "euthanized", as long as it is being killed in compliance with local laws? Maybe we should just say nothing at all as was suggested. Haber 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's a valid point, since the sentence does say "worldwide". In countries where there is little or no regulation we have no idea how research animals are killed. Maybe we can add something about contry-sepcific regulations in the different country sections? Nrets 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Un-indent. Euthanasia, for animals, requires use of the most humane methods possible. Collectively, veterinarians agree it should begin with loss of consciousness as quickly as possible, and consciousness should not be regained. For the methodology of PETA, it means the animal is sedated with ketamine, infused with pentobarbital until death if verified or assured. The last part is the tricky part, no agency in the USA will accept that anyone without specific veterinary training can apply euthanasia because it requires verification of death. The two PETA employees had no veterinary training, and had no specific training recognized by the state of North Carolina. They are charged with DOZENS of counts of animal cruelty as a result. Throughout the PETA page, the term "euthanasia" is used ubiquitously to refer to the procedures applied by veterinarians at their shelther. However, it is inappropriate to use the same term to refer to what the two employees did that resulted in dozens of counts of animal cruelty. There are multiple major news sources that agree with this specificity in use of the terms "killed" and "euthanized", and this is archived on the PETA discussion page. Following those same arguments, the words "subsequently killed" should be changed to "subsequently euthanized" in the first sentences. --Animalresearcher 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate reversion of edit

In the section, the arguments in brief. there sits a section of text moved from the old intro on the statement from the House of Lords on the moral basis of testing. I substantially expanded that particular section, re-labbeled it "Official statements from representative bodies", and included quotes from the House of Lords and the US Congress on Animal testing. This section was fully cited, relevant, clearly verifiable, and reverted by SV, WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION. --Animalresearcher 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because I'm becoming concerned about your POV editing, and in particular your misuse of source material. The Newkirk/BUAV example was one that particularly worried me, as you made the source say exactly the opposite of what it said. That has caused a large good faith problem for me with your edits, to be honest. It seems that your sole purpose at Wikipedia is to attack animal rights positions, groups, and activists. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is wiki-speak for, "I have no good reason, but you're a liar." Haber 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

An edit is an edit. It was sourced, verifiable, and relevant.--Animalresearcher 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Newkirk edits and BUAV edits. The Newkirk edit I made said PETA opposed taking animal as pets, I was confused, it should have said "sales of pets from stores and breeders". As to the BUAV edits, they have provided material support to the ALF in Great Britain, and made the initial link that led to the founding of the ALF in the USA. That's a really substantial amount of material support to groups that exist solely for the purpose of direct action. If BUAV really opposed direct action they would not help the ALF. Those edits are also sourced and verifiable and relevant. --Animalresearcher 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to the reversion. The existing paragraph suitable provides explanation of the position for animal testing from an official body. Why do we need to expand an already oversized article with information that was already there but in a more succinct form? I would have reverted just as SV did.

Also, everyone here needs to stop talking about their personal experiences. It simply does not matter if you have been working in the industry for X years or whether you are just interested in the subject - all edits must comply with our policies.

Nrets, the problem with the BUAV edits is that the link that lead to the person becoming an activist was done via deception on the woman's part - BUAV thought she was doing research. To include that would give the subject undue weight as it is nothing to do with them. Second, the fact that the BUAV gave office space to the ALF many years ago does not mean that they support direct action and any inference that it does is original research.

Is office space in London free now? Or then? Is it not quantifiable in direct monetary terms ie: pounds per sq ft per month? Was or was not BUAV reported by Newkirk to be the link by which Valerie contacted ALF (and then went on to set up the American branch of ALF)? Again, for ALF this definitely constitutes direct support. They are a covert agency, not directly contactable. If BUAV did not support them, they would not put interested outside parties in contact with them. If the story is true as reported, at the minimum BUAV thought they were putting potential publicity into the ALF's hands, which is also quantifiable in direct monetary terms. --Animalresearcher 13:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come now, you are trying to infer that BUAV, by knowing how to contact someone from the ALF, were directly supporting them. That is nonsense. If I knew how to contact people and put someone in touch with them because they wanted to do some research would I be a supporter of their actions? No.

With the office space, I have again stated that this is immaterial to the article - it is a single incident from many years ago which is being given undue weight.

Please stop trying to infer a link without providing a source stating that they support direct action.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We have their marketing agenda, which states they do not support direct action. We have their actions, which say they have provided direct support in several instances to the ALF. Both are relevant. If they were staunchly opposed to groups that undertake direct action, they would not have given the ALF office space and put Valerie in contact with the ALF. Even the action of putting a reporter in contact with the ALF cannot be thought to be other than helping the ALF. --Animalresearcher 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry AR but putting someone in touch with a member of the ALF for research is not 'supporting' them - you may think it is but that is irrelevant and your opinion. With regards to the office space, can you provide me with a method of including that information into that article without any original research.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The page in question is animal liberation movement, methods section. It does not state "direct support". It states there is evidence of "cooperation" between BUAV and ALF, and specifically mentions those two examples. When a group takes a hard stance against direct action (like BUAV and HSUS), the relationships they maintain with groups that do take direct action are relevant. Things like PETA paying Coronado's legal fees, and HSUS hiring JP Goodwin, and BUAV connecting Valerie with the ALF, all speak to the issue of how these organizations act with regards to groups conducting direct action. --Animalresearcher 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and/or Localzuk, please complete the following sentence: The section "Official statements from representative bodies" was deleted because ______. Haber 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Distortion of source material

What you did, Animal researcher, was add to Animal liberation movement that "There is ample evidence of co-operativity [sic] between groups like BUAV and groups that destroy property like ALF. For example, while Ronnie Lee was in prison, BUAV donated office space for the use of ALF in Britain." [1] You used Ingrid Newkirk's book Free the Animals as a source. You also added "BUAV executives have connected prospective ALF activists with Ronnie Lee who connected them to activist cells," [2] again using Newkirk as a source. I told you you must have misunderstood Newkirk, and asked which page you were taking it from. You admitted you hadn't looked at Newkirk's book, but had taken the information from material I had added to Ronnie Lee, which told the story of "Valerie", a woman who, in or around 1981, pretended to be a journalist looking for Ronnie Lee, the founder of the ALF, in order to interview him. In fact, she wanted to become an ALF activist. Believing she was a writer, a BUAV executive showed her where to find Ronnie Lee, who was being allowed to use an office in the BUAV building. That was it.

Out of that, you built that "there is ample evidence of co-operativity [sic] between groups like BUAV and groups that destroy property like ALF." You wrote "for example" when you wrote that a BUAV exec had introduced Valerie to Lee. That was one example of the "ample evidence of co-operativity [sic]". What were the other examples? You also wrote "BUAV executives [plural] have connected prospective ALF activists [plural] with Ronnie Lee." Who were the other executives? Who were the other activists?

It happens to be correct that the BUAV supported the ALF with free office space and some other resources until 1984, when the ALF was a much less violent group. That same BUAV executive has since written that he believes illegal direct action to be harmful. But you don't know that history and you haven't read the literature. You based that entire edit on one woman who said she was a writer being introduced to Ronnie Lee by BUAV. POV is one thing; distortion is something else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The incidents in question occurred in the early 80s, at a time at which there was apparently quite a lot of cooperation between the ALF and BUAV. Kim Stallwood speaks about the break away from ALF by BUAV later in the 80s in Steve Best's book "Terrorists of Freedom Fighters". I'd suggest introducing a section from that book to clarify BUAV's more recent stance towards groups carrying out direct action. BUAV also hosted a debate on "How to stop AR extremism" at the Labor Party Conference. There may be citable materials from that as well. I'd introduce the material from Best's book myself except that I do not pay for materials from AR activists on principle. --Animalresearcher 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You could order these books from libraries, then you wouldn't have to buy them.

You didn't answer my questions. You gave one distorted example of the "ample evidence of co-operativity [sic]", but you said it was just one example. What were the others? You also wrote "BUAV executives [plural] have connected prospective ALF activists [plural] with Ronnie Lee." Who were the other executives? And who were the other activists? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Two examples. Use of office space, and acting as a communicative liason. The former would be plenty. Office space ain't cheap. But you have a golden opportunity to add more referenced material on the change in the attitude of BUAV towards ALF in the mid 80s. --Animalresearcher 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Who were the other executive? Who were the other activists? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so lets drop the 'putting in touch' one - as it is completely irrelevant. The office space - we need to look at why they gave space to Ronnie Lee. Was it in his role to do with the ALF or something else?-Localzuk^(talk) 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It was the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group that was being allowed to use office space. The BUAV executive has written elsewhere about his support for ALF activists in the early 80s, but Animalresearcher hasn't read that either, so he in fact he's not familiar with any of the material you'd have to read in order to write about this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is this quote from an internet BB "The BUAV have moderated in recent years - I used to be on their committe in 1982 when the ALF had an office in their building. Kim Stallwood tells the story of the BUAV-ALF split in the Steve Best edition, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters. Since the split - and the move toward economic sabotage - the BUAV's stance on militancy has grown more and more negative." I am also not in favor of dropping the "putting in touch" quote, nor am I in favor of discussing changes to another page in the "animal testing" discussion page. --Animalresearcher 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV

Haber, I have asked you many times now, stop being confrontational. Your continued negative attitude towards editors on the site is not going to help anyone.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SV reverted solely "because I'm becoming concerned about your POV editing" and "you made the source say exactly the opposite of what it said. That has caused a large good faith problem for me with your edits" How much more confrontational can you get? All I'm saying is that if you're going to say nasty things without giving valid reasons for your obstructionism, then don't hide behind some "I" messages and silly buzzwords and pretend that you're filled with collaborative spirit. Also note that my insertion attempted to refocus on the issue, while yours was an attack on me for attempting to cut through the b.s. Let's get back to it. Is there any valid reason to blank the section on "Official statements from representative bodies", or are you two just going to keep shifting the topic and making personal attacks? Haber 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Haber, when we try and discuss things we all should abide by the rules whether you think they are a distraction or not. SV is perfectly right in what she has said as I am also wondering about the sudden increase in POV edits occurring on the animal rights/animal testing articles. However, as I have said - you have not given us any evidence to show that you are editing in good faith, coming into this discussion with a confrontational attitude and tone is not helping.

I have explained why the edit is a bad one, SV has explained why she reverted it. You simply came and had a dig at what SV said by saying she was just 'wiki-speaking'. You did not add anything to the discussion. So, again - unless you have something constructive to say in a civil manner, don't say anything. If you continue with incivility you will likely end up being blocked. (This is a civil warning, hoping that you will change your attitude and discuss things properly, not a threat.)-Localzuk^(talk) 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you intend to respond to the issues and stop trying to own this article through threats, unexplained reverts, and personal attacks, expect more "incivility". Haber 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I am afraid that you should expect to be blocked. We have been very patient with you, have provided explanations for our actions and do discuss the issues at hand (as you can see from the 6 pages of archives heavily filled with discussion from myself and SV and others) but you are unwilling to accept them.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We still have no answer on why the section "Official statements from representative bodies" was deleted. Now you're off yapping at some other guy about banners he tried to put up, that you reverted within one hour of their posting. Haber 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have said why I would remove it. And my conversations about banners for projects that are not relevant to pages is irrelevant - do not stalk me, following me around and commenting on my other edits is not on.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The banners were posted on this page, and the poster suggested that you were in violation of WP:OWN based on his observations. Seems relevant to me. Haber 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Haber, would you lay off, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, you don't want to explain your deletion. Very well. Haber 00:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate reversion of edit

In the section on the use of animals in Britain, it says "This includes inducing brain damage in order to research Parkinson's, studying visual and auditory functions, and cognitive research." Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function, so I changed the order of the statements to remove this potential ambiguity. SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true). Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's). --Animalresearcher 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop claiming to have personal knowledge of these issues. It makes no difference. We have no idea who you are, or what your qualifications are; and even if we did know, it would make no difference. All that matters is what reliable sources have published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that brain damage is induced to study cognition, visual and auditory functions, or do you simply insist on wording that sentence in a way to be specifically misleading and ambiguous? In this case, I think there was probably a small error on the part of whoever wrote that sentence which I corrected, and you reverted to be specifically misleading to be as negative as possible towards animal testing. As to my specific knowledge, it is somewhat different when you see something you know personally is a lie being put forth about your colleagues. --Animalresearcher 01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AR is generally correct regarding brain damage in studies concerning auditory function. The most common surgical intervention is ablation of the cochlea. But AR is not completely right. See for instance Deutscher A, Kurt S, Scheich H, Schulze H. Cortical and subcortical sides of auditory rhythms and pitches. Neuroreport. 2006 Jun 26;17(9):853-6. "Using auditory discrimination learning in bilaterally auditory cortex ablated animals, we demonstrate that the perceptual quality of sounds depends on the way the brain processes stimuli rather than on their physical nature."

AR is also incorrect regarding brain damage and vision research. See: Redlin U, Cooper HM, Mrosovsky N. Related Articles, Links Increased masking response to light after ablation of the visual cortex in mice. Brain Res. 2003 Mar 7;965(1-2):1-8.

AR is also incorrect regarding brain damage and cognition. See: Ridley RM, Baker HF, Mills DA, Green ME, Cummings RM. Topographical memory impairments after unilateral lesions of the anterior thalamus and contralateral inferotemporal cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(9):1178-91. "Monkeys with crossed unilateral excitotoxic lesions of the anterior thalamus and unilateral inferotemporal cortex ablation were severely impaired at learning two tasks which required the integration of information about the appearance of objects and their positions in space." Oddly, this was done at the Department of Experimental Psychology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK. Guess AR didn't visit that lab.

I personally think that having a knowledgeable researcher or two help with these pages would be a good thing. The problem is that very very few animal researchers have much breadth of knowledge of the specifics of this issue. When AR shouts about his/her own experiences, s/he may be telling the truth, but still be wrong as in the claims made above.Rbogle 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have edited a WP about brain damage inflicted on marmosets as part of research into cognition: the Cambridge experiments. I don't recall where the visual and auditory functions came from but I'll find a source and re-add it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, SV you claim to be such an expert on animal research, but please, show me citations to the exact studies you are refering to, before you start questioning other people's expertise and or knowledge. If you cite a source which misunderstands and then either purposefully or accidentally misrepresents the science, why is this a reliable source? You have done more to erode any good faith that I and probably other editors have in you in the last 24 hours. I am growing increasingly concerned with your POV edits and double standards. If you source something which fits your POV then its OK, if AR sources something you accuse his sourcing as biased. By the way, we have no idea who YOU are. Give it a rest. Nrets 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the U.S. Congress and British House of Lords are not reliable sources? Haber 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nret, I make no claims to have specialist knowledge about animal testing, so it doesn't matter who I am. All AR does is tell us how much he knows; that he's a member of this or that group; that he's been doing X for Y or decades/centuries; that he knows everything and everyone. First, he could be making it up. Second, true or false, it makes no difference. We go only by what published sources have said and AR is not one of them. Third, my contributions to animal rights related articles speak for themselves. I've regularly made edits from both POVs, but I have never seen you or AR make an edit from a pro- animal rights or an anti-animal testing POV. Not once. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SV, I'm fairly sure that there is enough scientific expertise here between RP, AR and me here to evaluate the accuracy of a potentially biased source. Here's a proposal, what if we take a look at the original BUAV source regarding brain injuries, and try and acheive a consensus whether it represents a misreading or misrepresentation of the scientific literature. This would help determine whether the source really is accurate or biased. Then we can discuss whether we should accept this source as reliable or not, and then change the phrasing accordingly. I know you will say this borders on OR, but there has to be a mechanism on WP to permit evaluation of the quality of the sources, and this is a good instance for WP:IGNORE. This won't mean that if this source turns out to be biased, anything from BUAV is automatically out, only in this particular instance will the decision be applied. Let me know what you think. Now, as far as you editing from "both sides of the aisle", I'm not sure I really buy into this. I've been working with you (or against you) for a bit now and what I have observed is that your edits from the "other side" mainly involve softening pro-animal research edits made by other editors to make them somewhat less compelling. This doesn't count. In all fairness, it could be that most of your pro-animal research edits were done before I got involved in this article, and now you are just reacting to recent edits. Anyway, let me know what you think about my proposal to evaluate the source. Nrets 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue of evaluating individual sources is tricky, Nrets. We're supposed to trust sources who are widely regarded by others are reliable. If we start picking and choosing, we get into the difficult area of some reliable sources being ditched because some editors don't like what they say. There's also the question of not knowing the editors who are doing the evaluating. Because we're all anonymous, none of us knows where the others' expertise lies; and even if we did, it would make no difference, because experts are often wrong and/or other experts disagree.

On the issue of POV, I can assure you that, if you look at my AR contributions overall, you'll see that I've edited from both POVs. You're also right that the editing on this page has caused an action-reaction process to set in, to the great detriment of the article, which is practically unreadable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Its debatable what sources are widely regarded. BUAV and PETA, for example are not widely regarded by most scientists, even those not involved in animal research. We're not picking and choosing, we're simply evaluating. So if BUAV says such and such a study did this, we can look at such and such a study and verify that in fact they did that. The scientific expertise comes in handy not to directly evaluate the source (you, SV, can evaluate the source too), but simply to explain some of the jargon that is likely to be found in the primary sources. This is done in scientific articles in WP all the time, where primary literature is used as sources, so it wouldn't be that unusual. So we wouldn't ditch anything because some editors don't like it, but rather because the source is factually inaccurate. Nrets 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly think of experiments which have caused brain damage to investigate vision, audition and cognition, particularly cognition where lesion studies are widespread. --Coroebus 11:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SV already mentioned the Cambridge cognition expts, here is a vision lesion study, and here is an auditory study. Let's not pretend. --Coroebus 11:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Those two examples did not occur within thousands of miles of the UK. But this is referenced from a BUAV source and was initially written ambiguously so that it was unclear if bran damage was induced in all studies, or just studies of Parkinsons. The appropriate thing to do is to go check the source and see what it said. Which I just did, and it reinforces my point. The report, page 37 of the PDF, mentions brain damage for studies of Parkinson's, and unambiguously does not mention it for visual, auditory, and cognitive studies. --Animalresearcher 13:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Ridley RM, Baker HF, Mills DA, Green ME, Cummings RM. Topographical memory impairments after unilateral lesions of the anterior thalamus and contralateral inferotemporal cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(9):1178-91. "Monkeys with crossed unilateral excitotoxic lesions of the anterior thalamus and unilateral inferotemporal cortex ablation were severely impaired at learning two tasks which required the integration of information about the appearance of objects and their positions in space." Oddly, this was done at the Department of Experimental Psychology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.(Couldn't resist...) Rbogle 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You made a claim that lesion studies of vision and audition are not carried out. You are wrong. I didn't realise that you were making a UK specific claim because that would be bizarre, but you are still wrong. Sufficiently wrong that I am surprised you even made the claim if you are familiar with UK animal research. --Coroebus 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference was cited in an ambiguous manner. I corrected it to be consistent with the reference and unambiguous. The reference referred to currently approved primate experiments in the UK. --Animalresearcher 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote above: "Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function ... Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's) ... Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that brain damage is induced to study cognition, visual and auditory functions, or do you simply insist on wording that sentence in a way to be specifically misleading and ambiguous?"

You were saying that brain damage is not induced for studies of visual and auditory function, or cognition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference was cited in an ambiguous manner. I corrected it to be consistent with the reference and unambiguous. The reference referred to currently approved primate experiments in the UK. I certainly did not mean to intend that no one had ever caused brain damage to study visual or auditory or cognitive function - that is incorrect. --Animalresearcher 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what did you mean by "I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function" and "Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function." and "Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that brain damage is induced to study cognition, visual and auditory functions ..."? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unindent. You had reverted an edit for some reason. The edit made the text consistent with its reference. I was asking if there was any evidence in the reference that your reversion was warranted. Here is the text, page 37, from the reference. "The scientific literature reveals that some of these experiments involve brain-damaging marmosets with the intention of studying human Parkinson's disease. Others include research into visual and auditory functions, fundamental cognitive research, and marmoset 'models' of human multiple sclerosis. Fewer such experiments involve macaques, although they are subjected to Parkinson's disease research in some British laboratories." The text from the page that referred to this section was ambiguous about whether brain damage was induced just for studies of Parkinson's or for all the categories of studies. I made this unambiguous, and I fail to see why you reverted this change when it seem ridiculously straightforward and takes all of 30 seconds to check. I generally had the impression that those anointed with editor powers in Wikipedia did not act out of grudges or revert changes for reasons not consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Animalresearcher 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're avoiding answering the questions. I'll leave it for others to decide why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Those questions are moot wrt the editing process. The point that UK scientists currently do not perform brain lesions in primates in auditory studies...the lab that performed lesions in visual studies in primates now uses reversible chemical lesions, as do most other people studying the contributions of brain areas to normal function (if they study the area by removing it from the system at all, which most do not). Further, there are really few auditory and visual physiologists using primates in the UK AT ALL (and rather a decent complement in other areas). The most high profile cognitive neuroscience lab in Britain doesn't do lesion studies, either. But there are studies that partially destroy or remove sections of the brain to create a model of human dysfunction in stroke and Parkinson's. In retrospect, the FIRST point I should have brought up was consistency to the reference and avoided all the other crud I brought in. However, I still maintain that reversion was inappropriate and uncalled for and spoke of a failure of WP:AGF on your part, SV, you assumed the edit was bad because I made it and not because of anything related to content, and you did the same with two other edits I made on the same day (a threesome!) . --Animalresearcher 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it wasn't clear that the section you were referring to was about primate work, so you're right that auditory research in monkeys is uncommon, especially lesions studies, but it is disingenuous to pretend that lesion studies are not a fairly integral part of the neuroscientist's armoury - particularly in cognitive work, e.g. a couple from this year here and here. --Coroebus 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want your edits to be trusted, become a trustworthy editor. There are other pro-testing editors whose work I don't even have to look at, because I know it'll be good even if I disagree with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am keeping a running scorecard on all this. Three times this week I made good edits, that were eventually kept in their entirety, that FOR SOME REASON required thousands of words of explanation on the discussion page to a WIKIPEDIA editor who reverted the changes because I made them and not because of consideration of content or any WIKIPEDIA policy. --Animalresearcher 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SV and LZ, lay off a bit, here. The source does say that lesion studies were done to study Parkinson's. In a different sentence it states that in OTHER studies primates are used to study vision, audition and cognition and nowhere it says explicity or even implicitly that lesions are used for these studies. This is regardless of whether anyone has ever produced a brain lesion to study vision. I think that these (and Haber's) are such small edits that I feel that you are reverting them because of who made them, not because their content, and I think that is why this discussion is getting so out of hand. Nrets 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Further arguments with AR on my talk page if anyone's interested: User_talk:Coroebus#Tag_on_your_edit_at_Animal_Testing. --Coroebus 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied below)

From Coroebus talk page

Your edit on animal testing included a mention of inserting electrodes into the brain for studies of vision. This is referenced (in Next of Kin) as a technique sampled from the entire world of visual studies, and not from the UK. The paragraph, and referral in the text, discuss primate experiments in the UK. Please add a reference to the use of inserted electrodes for UK studies of vision, auditory, and cognitive studies, or redact the referral to "inserting electrodes into the brain", which clearly did not come from the same reference already listed. Or, if it is there and I missed it, please add a page number. --Animalresearcher 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, you know that electrodes (i.e. single unit recording) are widely used for neuroscientific research, especially in vision (e.g. here) so I am just clarifying what sort of things are meant by neuroscientific research into vision, cognition etc... It may not be covered by the reference, but then no one else is disputing that this is what it entails. I also wanted to mention optical imaging but couldn't quite figure out how to phrase it - if you think that other practices are more representative then add them in too - don't be disingenuous by insisting on a reference for something you should know is the case if you are, as you claim, familiar with what goes on in animal research. --Coroebus 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

here's some more electrodes stimulating and recording in the UK. I don't want to add in references since it would clog up the article and doesn't need citations unless someone awkward comes along to dispute it. --Coroebus 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The first reference comes from the National Eye Institute, in Bethesda, MD. The second comes from studies of Parkinson's, in which chemical lesions are followed by deep brain stimulation. But there are still not references for insertion of electrodes into the brain for studies of visual, auditory, or cognitive studies. The electrode usage in Parkinson's studies is identical to the human surgical preparation applied in thousands of humans yearly. The MPTP model was developed because humans mistakenly took MPTP (they thought it was ecstasy). But both the chemical lesion and the treatment in Asiz's study directly follow human voluntary efforts. The visual study was simply not conducted in the UK. --Animalresearcher 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, if you actually read the second study, you will find it was conducted in the UK ("Animals and training. For monkeys Hg and Rb, all procedures were performed in accordance with the United Kingdom Home Office regulations on animal experimentation" - look at the authors!), the other study is indeed in a Parkinsonian model, what is your point? It establishes that electrode studies are indeed carried out in the UK (in this case in Parkinson's research, which is one of the area the sentence "This includes neuroscientific study of the visual and auditory systems, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's [62], involving techniques such as recording from electrodes inserted into the brain or temporary or permanent damage to areas of tissue." refers to (although I just talk about recording in that, just thought a stimulating one would show the variety of electrode studies). I don't understand your irrelevant waffle about how electrode preps in humans and monkeys are similar, like I give a friggin rat's arse, what do you think I am, some starry eyed ALF activist? I'm in favour of animal research, I'm just opposed to your clumsy revisionism. --Coroebus 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The recording occurs from microelectrodes, and not electrodes inserted into the brain. The deep brain stimulation uses electrodes. This terminology is consistent with your references, but not consistent with the unattributed text you added. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear god. Please tell me you know that a microelectrode is a type of electrode! --Coroebus 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See table 9 of last year's figures here, 100 monkeys had interference with the brain. A not insignificant number. --Coroebus 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced. And still is. It should not be hard for you to understand the need to back up edits you add to Wikipedia with verifiable references. --Animalresearcher 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I regard that as tendentious - I do not think a citation is necessary, I have already established that the statement is true, if you think a citation is necessary then feel free to add one or all of the references I have provided. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you feel like adding edits to wikipedia for content in a highly controversial article do not require citation from you. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE#Tagging_unsourced_material says "To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material: If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." but you say above "I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced" i.e. you want citations purely for citations sake, not because the material is "doubtful". i.e. you are tendentiously editing and trying to prove some kind of WP:POINT. I would add citations in if I thought anyone realistically disagreed that electrode recordings and lesion studies are carried out in neuroscience studies of vision, cognition or disease models. The only objection has been yours, which isn't an objection to the veracity at all. If you absolutely must have citations for every sentence in the article, put them in yourself, there are plenty, and I've provided you with some. Your edits to the article as a whole annoy me because it looks like you are trying to downplay what you regard as less palatable aspects of animal research, in order to win some kind of propaganda war over animal research - whereas I am here to accurately report what happens in animal research, to allow people to make up their own minds. This just seems like one more example of that, particularly when I see you saying things like "Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function, so I changed the order of the statements to remove this potential ambiguity. SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true). Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's)." which I have demonstrated to be false (and I only know and have visited some of the labs). --Coroebus 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true)." Just to clarify: I don't believe these studies require it, simply that it has been done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Microelectrodes are inserted into the brain to record, not electrodes. There is at least a ten-fold difference in size, which speaks directly to the controversial issue of potential pain and suffering. A microelectrodes is typically 0.1 mm at its widest, electrodes 1 mm wide or wider. And the reference still associates UK auditory primate studies with insertion of electrodes or brain damage, neither of which is true because there are not any UK auditory primate studies. So, yes, I am questioning the validity of your edit on multiple grounds. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, while we are at it, if you could find ANY SINGLE REFERENCE on either brain lesions or microelectrode studies of the auditory system in primates in the UK I would appreciate it. I feel there MUST be an auditory primate physiology community in the UK, but I cannot put my finger on it. --Animalresearcher 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not my field, the auditory groups I know use other species (e.g. ferrets), in fact I'm not familiar with any auditory work in primates. The next of kin 'report' cites a review by Andy King on research that wasn't actually carried out in the UK so they may just be confused. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

King uses ferrets currently. There is also auditory guinea pig and rodent work. But not primates. Since there are not auditory studies that use primates in the UK, perhaps that should be removed. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection from me, like I say, looks like they mistook his review for the original study. --Coroebus 13:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the version before you altered it. If you want to mention methods I have no objection as long as it is cited and verifiable. As I already pointed out, the lack of primate auditory studies in the UK already casts doubt on the validity of the Next of Kin report as a source. This highlights the issue. The edits need to be verifiably referenced. I do not think you will have any problem finding citations for the use of microelectrodes in visual or cognitive studies, or brain damage being induced for studies of Parkinson's (this one is actually already in the Next of Kin report). But please do not introduce something because you think it is true without a verifiable reference. --Animalresearcher 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand about AR's edits is that they suggest AR doesn't support animal testing himself. He can only support a diluted, whitewashed version, where is no pain, the legislation is wonderful, the animals are happy, and much of the research is done to benefit the animals themselves. Surely, if you truly support something, you support the thing unadorned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Necessity to support edits with citation

The following text

This includes studying visual and auditory functions, cognitive research, and chemically inducing brain damage in order to research Parkinson's. [62]

was altered to this

This includes neuroscientific study of the visual and auditory systems, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's [62], involving techniques such as recording from electrodes inserted into the brain or temporary or permanent damage to areas of tissue.

I added a fact tag, because reference number 62 did not support the use of recording electrodes being inserted into the brain in UK primate studies. Instead, it made a broad assessment of studies worldwide and techniques used in visual, auditory, or cognitive studies. I therefore viewed the edit as requiring citation. Coroebus deleted the fact tag without supplying a citation in the article. I reverted the sentence to the version consistent with reference [62]. Coroebus un-reverted it. In discussion on Coroebus' talk page, he supported the use of electrodes with personal knowledge, and even a Pubmed citation, but refused to add such a citation to the article. I further pointed out that there are in fact not primates in use in the UK in auditory studies (but there are in visual and cognitive), but that is all irrelevant to the article which must support its edits with verifiable references. Which bring me to the discussion page for consideration of others on how to get someone to add citations to their edits without being nasty and simply entering a reversion war. --Animalresearcher 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The other problem with the edit is the microelectrodes are inserted into the brain for studies of cognition and vision in UK primate studies, not electrodes. There is at least a 10-fold difference in size which speaks directly to the controversial issues relating to potential pain and suffering when you compare inserting something more than 1 mm wide into the brain, and when you insert something 0.1 mm wide into the brain. What's more, the references Coroebus' provided on the user talk page similarly referred to the use of microelectrodes, and noted that there are not any UK primate auditory studies that either insert electrodes into the brain or cause brain damage (because there are not any UK primate auditory physiologists). At a bare minimum the word auditory should be removed, and the word electrodes should be changed to microelectrodes --Animalresearcher 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't imagine there'd be a difference in the pain provoked by a microelectrode (a type of electrode) and a larger electrode inserted into the brain. 10pts for the first person who can tell AR why. --Coroebus 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference, in that the dura mater has pain receptors, and piercing it causes a behavioral reaction. Somewhat akin to a pin prick. Unless the pin is 10 times wider. Animal welfare critics are pushing neuroscientists to consider alternative methods or analgesics for this reason, which is again something people who are actually familiar with these processes understand quite well. In any case, I find the current edit acceptable --Animalresearcher 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The dura mater only has sparse pain receptors (associated with blood vessels) and in those situations where an electride is advanced through the dura without local anaesthetic there is rarely a reaction (I can't say about whether it is like a pin-prick, never having had anything stuck through mine) - so it is hardly a major issue of pain and suffering! --Coroebus 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Re this edit by SlimVirgin, obviously I have no objection to "For">"for" but I find the "animal research">"animal testing" reversion, with the justification "the article calls it animal testing, not animal research" pretty odd when the first line says "Animal testing, or animal research, refers to...". Now many of us would rather the article was called "animal research" but to insist that only "animal testing" can be used in the body of the article is ridiculous. --Coroebus 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it back. I'm just concerned about the way that organization is being written about. See the article, which tries to give the impression that animal testing mostly benefits other animals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I've just added a number of categories which I hope will help get some more scientists interested in this article. If anyone objects please list your disagreements here. Haber 05:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What is this article actualy about?

It starts off:

"Animal testing, or animal research, refers to the use of animals in experiments. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million animals worldwide — from fruit flies and mice to non-human primates — are used annually and subsequently euthanized."

1. Humans are animals. Should "non-human" be added to the definition?
2. The article is laregly about mammals. Either most the content should be moved to an article titled something like "Non-human mammal research" or the article as in must be labeled as biased and unrepresentative.
3. Do single cell animals count?
4. One could do a whole article on Planarium experiments alone.
5. Do experiments performed by students to teach the students (rather than for new research) count?
6. Do experiments in which a surgeon hones his skills count? If a new surgical procedure is being tested?
7. Do amateur experiments count?
8. How about industrial farming practices that are experimental such as H5N1 vaccine use in poultry?
9. Does the experiment have to be negative to count as an experiment? Invasive? Psychological animal experiments? Experimenting with new dog training techniques? Does it matter if the method is medically invasive or not?

WAS 4.250 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All excellent questions. The page is too long and so the scope is something we have to discuss in order to start splitting it up. The difficult lies in ensuring that each subpage will be NPOV, and that pages aren't split off for the purpose of hiding criticism, heaven forfend.

As for your first point, it was non-human animal until a few days ago, but there was an objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

1. Well it was at one point, someone removed it for some reason. Nevertheless, you can make a good case that "animal" is often used to mean "non-human animal" (e.g. that will be one of the definitions in a dictionary)
2. The article does not have to be "representative" in the sense you intend, it points out that most studies are on invertebrates, but most interest (from the public, government, and animal rights groups) is in vertebrates, particularly mammals, and especially primates - hence the focus.
3. we could argue about single cell animals (scientific vs. lay classification of animals) but why bother? You really want to insert smething about the myxozoa?
4. One could, but not many people would read it.
5. I'm not sure, I would think so - you want to add a section, got any sources?
6. Yes, if testing a new procedure, a surgeon just hacking something up for practice I'd say yes too (unaware of how prevalent this might be, certainly not found in the UK) but others might disagree.
7. Yes.
8. I would say that as long as the farming practice is part of an experiment it is animal research - once it becomes primarily done as an industrial process it is farming (cf. veterinary research).
9. Negative? I don't understand the question. Doesn't have to be invasive although there is probably an unclear line at the border with ecological research, psychological experiments obviously count, whether dog trainers technically count I'm not 100% sure, but again, why make an issue of it, do you have any relevant sources on the practice? --Coroebus 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally made the change in 1). Non-human animal is understood. As in, Animal rights, Animal testing, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Welfare Act, I like animals, Animal-friendly, etc. The meaning of "animal" is precisely defined in the US govt. regulations, but my impression (and I heard this from a famous anti-testing person) is that most antis are concerned about species shrimp and above. Bible-thumpers might take serious issue with including humans. Of course I agree in principle with the scientific definition, as the anatomic similarities between mammals are enough for me, but with lay people I don't go around referring to a dog walker and a bunch of dogs as a group of animals, or a natural sponge as an animal. As for your other points I encourage you to explore the article and the links, and try making a few edits if you think they'll improve the article. Haber 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that humans are animals is at the heart of animal experimentation that is done to better understand humans. The use of the word "animal" to mean "nonhuman animal" both creates a bias in artificially distinguishing one species from others (which is unacceptable in a scientific context such as this article) and serves to obscure and make unconcious that bias and various presumptions that are at the heart of cotroversies about the subject of this article. It would be like writing about Israel using the word "Jew" to mean Israeli citizen, in that clearity is essential to any true understanding of the situation. As someone once said, "Calling things by their right name is the beginning of wisdom" (or was it "knowledge"?). WAS 4.250 17:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but science's use of words doesn't get to define the meaning of words outside of a scientific context - and that includes in general encyclopedias. Common usage and dictionary definition state (here the OED) "2. In common usage: one of the lower animals; a brute, or beast, as distinguished from man", and it is that common usage that is found in "animal research" or "animal testing". --Coroebus 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, so maybe we can change the article title to "Brute Testing" ? Nrets 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Break off pieces

I suggest we agree to break off pieces of this article. See Frogs in research and Non-human primate experiments. WAS 4.250 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been agreed in principle. It's how to do it that's the issue. I've started doing it with the abuse section, but haven't yet edited that down, and I won't until I know what's staying in the sub-article. I think another obvious page would be the alternatives to animal testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved that section into its own article, Alternatives to animal testing. I'm assuming this won't be controversial, as it seems to be an obvious division. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since you seem to be making progress in the general direction that also seems right to me; I'll hang back for now and let you make progress at a speed that works for you. WAS 4.250 06:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Euthanasia

I've changed euthanasia back to killed, because there's no indication that it's mercy killing. The animals are killed as a matter of routine in order to study or dissect them post-mortem. That's not euthanasia; if you're going to extend the term to cover that, you render it meaningless. That is, you're simply using it to mean "kill," in which case just use that word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you're wrong as euthansia simply means killing without pain or suffering (e.g. OED: 1. A gentle and easy death. 2. The means of bringing about a gentle and easy death. Also transf. and fig. 3. In recent use: The action of inducing a gentle and easy death. Used esp. with reference to a proposal that the law should sanction the putting painlessly to death of those suffering from incurable and extremely painful diseases.) with the meaning you're advocating being more recent. But I don't really care what word we use and killing means the same thing. --Coroebus 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Coroebus, if I were to approach the next person I met in the street in order to give them a gentle and easy death, I would not be charged with euthanasia! The definition incorporates a sense of mercy killing, no matter how arguable e.g. because of illness, homelessness, being cooped up in an animal shelter, etc. Even that use of the word is stretching things, but it is at least arguable. But to use it for animals who are being killed needlessly so that researchers can dissect them is to render the term meaningless. We also have no evidence that they are given easy and gentle deaths. To use that term is to buy into the animal-testing industry's POV. "Kill" is an entirely descriptive term which implies nothing about whether it's legal/illegal, necessary/unnecessary, painful/pain-free. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start a fight with you since I don't care what word is used - but I have to object that euthanasia has a very specific meaning (#1 above), it is a word that has been around for hundreds of years, in more recent times there has been a debate about euthanasia in the sense of #3, but that doesn't stop the word meaning what it means. You could object that its use in this context would be misleading (although, interestingly, animal charities will refer to euthanising unwanted animals) but you can't retroactively redefine the word (cf. 1646 BP. HALL Balm Gil. 337 But let me prescribe and commend to thee, my sonne, this true spirituall meanes of thine happy Euthanasia. 1709 Tatler No. 44 {page}3 Give me but gentle Death: Euthanasia, Euthanasia, that is all I implore. 1768 BURKE Corr. (1844) I. 155 At her age, no friend could have hoped for your mother any thing but the Euthanasia. 1837 CARLYLE Fr. Rev. II. v. v, Not a torture death, but a quiet euthanasia.) --Coroebus 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, C. Even if you remove the "mercy killing" aspect, we're still left with no idea whether the animals are given a gentle and easy death. I'm not keen on using that word in articles about animal protection groups either, incidentally, for the same reason, which is primarily that I see no reason to use euphemisms on Wikipedia. We don't write that people have "passed away," so let's also not write that animals have been "euthanized." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Coroebus hits the proverbial nail on the head when he talk abour animal charities refering to "euthanising unwanted animals" (see animal euthanasia). This euthanasia is not necessarily "for their own good" nor a "mercy killing", as - given the choice - i'm sure the animals would rather survive and live among Ingrid Newkirk's menagerie. However, given the situation they are in, someone makes the decision that a relatively painless death is better than the alternative that is logistically open to them. The exact same can be said of animals that are killed after experimentation.

However, that issue is rendered circumstantial, as the definition of the term does not solely encompass the context your are are using it, SV. According to our sister project among other dictionaries, euthanasia can simply mean "The practice of killing a human being or animal who is suffering greatly or has very poor quality of life". Seeing as the "suffering" and "poor quality of life" of research animals is one of the major concerns of the animal rights fraternity, i'm confused about what aspect of that dicdef does not apply, in your opinion, to research animals after experimentation?

Some of the animals would have a perfectly good quality of life if the researchers would simply let them go instead of dissecting them, RP, so that argument's a non-starter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they would, that is exactly my point. (Actually, I'm lying. To be perfectly honest, they wouldn't. Almost all lab animals wouldn't last 5 minutes if they were just "let go", but lets pretend they would).

I don't see why not if homes could be found. The animals who've been removed by the ALF have often done well apparently, and there are sanctuaries set up for primates who are sometimes released. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If thats the argument against calling it "euthanasia", then why can't homes not be found for the strays PETA euthanises? The same logic applies. Rockpocket 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In almost every situation so-called animal euthanasia is not the "best option" for the animal (ask the animal and he would conjure up something like spending thousands of dollars pampering to its every need for the rest of its life). What it is, is the best option considering the limiting parameters the animal finds itself in (either a overcrowded PETA shelter or a research lab). Thus within the context of the animal's situation when the decision is made to kill, the death a lab animal experiences most certainly fulfils the definition of euthanasia just as much as one of PETA's mercy killings does. Rockpocket 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if we accept that, there's no evidence the animals are given a gentle and painless death. And as discussed elsewhere, many are killed by the experiments and die in great pain. To use the term "euthanasia" in this context is to buy into a particular POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As per below, those killed by the experiments are not "subsequently killed" (as the article states). They are killed as a consequence of the experiment and I agree that is certainly not euthanasia. Those killed subsequently are humanely killed and thus are euthanised. Which are we talking about? Rockpocket 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the term is used widely in animal experimentation legislature in the US [3] when referring to the exact process as we use in the article. Interestingly enough, the UK legislature seems to all but avoid the term, instead repeatedly using "humane killing" [4]. Many would suggest the two are interchangable, but since this is a term counched in [UK] law, would anyone object to the used of "humanely killed" in the article instead, with Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as a source?) Rockpocket 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The further problem, RP, is that lots of animals are killed by the experiments. So we don't in fact know that they are humanely killed. They may die in great pain, or some of them may. Do we have any idea of numbers? For example, with the LD50 test, the animals are not humanely killed. Quite the reverse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are referring to the ones killed by an experiment it should read "consequently killed" instead of "subsequently killed". Death is not a subsequence if it is the inherent purpose of the experiment (thats kind of like saying death is a subsequence of execution!). Few animals are killed by experiments unless that is an expected outcome. Many experiments require animal tissue that are harvested from euthanised animals and many more experiments will leave animals in pain or distress (but not dead, or even close to dying). Which is the reason they are subsequently euthanised. In fact, in most situations those animals that are killed subsequent to the experiment have to, by law or local regulation, be euthanised in a prescribed, humane manner (hence the language in the legislature). There is a key distinction to be made here. Rockpocket 07:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RP, do you have sources showing the numbers killed by the experiments intentionally, by the experiments unintentionally, and killed afterwards to be dissected? Also, do you have sources showing the animals must be killed after the experiments by law? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think either "humanely killed" or "euthanized" are appropriate. I think RP's argument that the term is widely used in the experimentation legislature, in addition to the fact that that is the proper term for the scientific procedure, are sufficient arguments to warrant the use of that term. All other agruments are irrelevant. Nrets 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Thats not entirely so, Nrets. SV is right in that those animals for which death is an endpoint of the experimental procedure will not necessarily meet the criteria for "euthanasia". For example, if I am doing an experiment on clotting to see how long a mouse bleeds out, or say I'm testing football helmets on primates, its entirely possible that the my experimental procedure will result in the death of the animal in a not very humane manner. These consequent deaths are not euthanasia by anyone's standards. However, for many procedures, like surgery, tail tipping, transgenics or - even quite nasty, injurous experiments - like toxicology testing of caustic substances, legislation and ethics committees ensure protocols will stipulate that some experimental point, or when the experiment is completed, the animal be killed in a humane manner. These subsequent deaths are clearly "euthanasia" per the dicdef. We should distinguish between these if we are to be accurate in our description.

SV asked for sources. Tricky, but here goes: If you read the UK Government's guidance for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (basically the practical guide to stay within the law). In Chapter 4 there is a section that details how records must be kept of animal disposal. This covers all the options available to you to get rid of your animal. It says you must record:

• Those "killed by an appropriate method listed in Schedule 1" (which lists "appropriate method[s] of humane killing"):
  • whether on welfare grounds
  • for harvesting tissues for experimental or other scientific purposes
  • or as surplus to requirements

(These are the humane deaths by ethanasia I refer to above)

• Deaths from other causes

(These are the consequent, non-Schedule 1, deaths I refer to above as well as other unexplained and unexpected deaths that may or may not be related to experimental procedures and those that die "of old age". All clearly not euthanasia)

• supplied to another designated establishment
• discharged from the controls of the Act (for example, to a farm, as a pet, back to stock, to a slaughter house, to the wild, or supplied for export).

(These have obviously escaped death... for now)

So, in the UK at least, you can see how the law segregates the humane killing (schedule 1) and non-humane killing with those that are related to procedures and those that are not. Since these numbers are recorded by law, they must be documented somwhere. Whether those numbers are made available to the public is another matter. I can't really speak for the US legislature or other countries. However, my personal experience is that local regulations tend to mimic the British legislature in that a schedule 1 type of humane killing is required whenever possible. So, I would argue this supports the following content in the lead:

"is estimated that 50 to 100 million animals worldwide [4][5][6] — from fruit flies and mice to non-human primates — are used annually and either killed during the experiments or subsequently euthanised"

Is that acceptable?? Rockpocket 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise, RP. Although to say that they are killed and not euthanized during the experiment is also not entirely accurate. For example you can euthanize an animal before or during the experiment in order to extract tissue for culturing. But that's a minor point, I think your phrasing is good. Nrets 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise. Thanks for supplying all that information, RP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As the one who started this whole debate, I was concerned the terms "killing" and "euthanasia" were not being used consistently when the operators were animal experimenters, or animal rights activists, or veterinarians. Euthanasia is a very sensitive topic to people who are involved in the process, it probably requires a policy similar to the policy on the use of the word terrorism/terrorist so that these reversions between euthanasia and kill are at least consistent and referenced to some standard, and not allowed to be used as POV tools in the controversy on animal testing. I personally do not think the compromise reflects reality. Animals rarely if ever are killed and not euthanized in experiments, but they do occasionally die incidentally. For example, we do non-invasive behavioral studies on old animals. We keep them until they die. Their death is not usually euthanasia but of natural causes. In my experience, these types of deaths are FAR FAR FAR more common than experimental killings that do not constitute euthanasia (which I have NEVER come across in decades in "the business"). Animals might also die of infections, or as a complication for something like a stroke or cardiac infarction study, but those are unintended consequences (and not euthanasia either). THE ONLY EXCUSE for killing an animal in an experiment intentionally without euthanasia is if you are studying death itself. AT ALL OTHER TIMES analgesia or anesthesia would preclude actual death in the experiment because anything less would fail animal welfare standards. This is stated quite clearly in "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals". I also don't have a problem with the term "kill" being used there PROVIDED its use is consistent across the many pages that reference animals being killed and/or euthanized. PETA is the other notable page in this regard. --Animalresearcher 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To re-phase more succinctly, I think the change doesn't reflect that animals die MOST OFTEN from euthanasia, much less often but in significant numbers due to unintended circumstances, and rarely if ever without euthanasia as part of experimental goals. But my concern is mostly with a consistent WIKI policy or standard on the use of the terms euthanasia and kill with regards to animals. There is too much inconsistent reverting going on here and at PETA. If referenced to a standard and applied consistently, it could all be avoided. Or at least much of it. --Animalresearcher 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue of consistency is a valid concern, and perhaps something that could be addressed at WP:WPAR. I agree - and believe i noted above - that death during experiments is rare. However, there are occasions that it occurs even when death itself is not being studied. Of example terminal endpoint experiments do occur where anaesthesia is lacking because it will interfere with the study parameters; I believe this occurs in certain clotting experiments. Analgesia may be used in these cases, but providing limited pain relief when causing a conscious animal to die doesn't quite cut it as euthanasia in my eyes. Nevertheless, since we can't provide a reliable source indicating how lab animals die, instead relying on our personal experience, any argument about relative numbers is moot. That is why I proposed the compromise, it covers the two major aspects of animal death without speculating on how common each are. Rockpocket 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Information about a new study

It may already be in the article, or it may be irrelevant, but this just came out: Mismatch found between drug trials on animals, humans. A link to an abstract on the study is to the right of the article text. Anchoress 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias in "controversy" section

The controversy section appears to be entirely consisted of immoral acts by scientists. There should also be some mention about immoral acts by animal rights protestors. For some refrences, search google for "animal rights attack"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.62.243 (talk • contribs).

This article is about animal testing, not about animal rights. To expand into more detail on this would make this article unmanagable.

All the information in the section is presented in a neutral and unbiased manner with sources. There are counter claims to various points and evidence of legal responses to various animal rights organisations actions there.

I would suggest you take a look at Animal liberation movement for details more related to what you are looking for.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Complete bias in the animal rights box - all are anti-vivisection groups

On the box on the right hand side half-way down. I suggest a few of the "lesser" animal rights groups, say Viva and PCRM are removed and replaced with some Pro-animal testing groups such as: Pro-Test - http://www.pro-test.org.uk RDS - http:/www.rdsonline.org.uk Coalition for Medical Progress - http://www.medicalprogress.org - I won't do this myself, but would appreciate if someone could make this edit 163.1.42.170 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Tom Holder 13/1/07

Hello. You will notice some of those groups are featured in another info-box in the article, Template:Animal testing advocacy. Rockpocket 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidy

Further to some recent praise, I think the article is currently stable enough to attempt a cleanup of the references, which a currently a mish-mash of about three different systems. I'll have a go at doing this over the coming days. I thought I would just leave notice here so regular watchlisters need not be alarmed at the high number of edits that will likely occur in the process. My plan is to mark any change that only involves coverting old style references to new style references as minor. Should I make any change to content other than that, I will not mark it minor, so other editors can review it easier if they choose. Rockpocket 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

my opinion

Im sorry but when it comes to animal testing im for it in some ways and agneist it in others when its for medical purposes im for it but for cosmedics im agneist i think its a good way to test new products insted of on humans we use animals and can help with cures for cancer or diabetis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazerman2345 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week

World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week is this coming week (April 22nd - 28th, 2007), so we can probably expect extra vandalism on this and associated pages. Be vigilant, people. Rockpocket 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Script issues

I've added a box at the top to try and stop people adding poorly spelled opinions to this page. However it is indented due to the archive box. If there is anyone who knows how to sort that (probably most people) could they make it look prettier please? ImmunolPhD 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the "controversy" section?

Would the ongoing saga at Oxford University, with the building of the new animal research facility, the court judgements restricting protests, etc. be an appropriate addition to this article? Splat2million 13:43, 17 May 2007 (BST)

It might belong in the OU article. Rklawton 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

see also Pro-Test. --Coroebus 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism removed

I have deleted a couple of bits of obvious vandalism from the start of the article, someone with more time/knowledge of the article might want to check for more...130.88.173.23 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Advocates of Animal Testing

I'm not sure this is the place for discussion, since there isn't any here (odd) but maybe the most recent talk page reached some sort of quota and was automatically archived? I'm sure one of you will sort it out. Anyway, the final entry of the section "Advocates of Animal Testing" says: "Animal research is often necessary for supporting animal welfare. Wild, domestic and laboratory animals all benefit from policies set as a result of animal research. In an infamous extreme case, the experiments on macaques conducted by Harry Harlow helped prove the "humanity" of non-human primates to both scientists and the general public. This lead to banning experiments such as Harlow himself conducted, as well as the far more brutal work that was the norm for the time[109]." Grammar aside, there's a lot wrong with these claims, but I didn't want to delete it right off due to the fact that it is referenced. But the purported source, Gluck JP. 1997 doesn't support these claims. Also, in the US, no particular type of study is banned. The entire paragraph should be deleted.

Secondly, what does the section just above it, regarding the number of animals eaten, have to do with animal testing? Rbogle 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section about the number of animals used for food is irrelevant - it would be like saying thousands of people are killed in wars every year so it's OK to kill one or two for some other reason. Also agree that ph about Harlow, even though referenced, is far too POV. The reference quoted has to do with ethics - how do ethics of animal experiments help wild animals? Either delete or change it to make sense.Bob98133 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Harlow claim was deleted. Good. But the other animals killed part remains. How is this germane to the question of animal testing? This isn't an article about the animal/human relationship or the general use of animals, but rather it is specific to the use of animals in science. (Personally, I think the title should be Vivisection. Animal Testing seems to be used narrowly in the US to mean product/drug testing. Oh well.) Rbogle 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that humans (and other animals) treat animals (including humans) far more inhumanely than laboratories do in many contexts (including farming) and yet receive far less attention from animal rights activists than labs do is widely considered to be strong evidence for the extremist nature of of the animal rights movement.

On the Harlow paragraph, I am not convinced the opinion of a couple people here who have their own PoV is sufficient to remove something which again has broad support in the literature (see the Harlow article for a review of this & more references.) I agree though there needs to be more references & examples about how evidence from experimentation leads to public policy on wildlife conservation. I saw an excellent talk about this within the last couple months so I will try to find my notes & track down some more references before re-editing that paragraph (though if someone else beats me to it, please be my guest!) --Jaibe 07:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Harlow paragraph should have been deleted (and was apparently) because the citation used to support it did not support the claim that was made. Have you read the Gluck article? If you have, please point to the part that you think supports the original claim. I read it over a few times looking for the claimed support but couldn't find it; maybe I missed it.

Your claim regarding farming and labs seems more of an opinion than a fact. You might be confusing the tactics used by people working in each area with the degree of attention each area receives. That aside, I still don't understand the point. It seems akin to pointing to murder as an argument that people shouldn't be so concerned with child neglect.Rbogle 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a justifiable case to be made in citing the number of animal deaths resulting from food/materials needs of society and those killed due to medical research. We as a society accept that there are legitimate reasons for the killing of animals- whether it be leather for baseball gloves or steaks for a Sunday dinner. These are 'quality of life' choices, and I believe the argument that says 'We accept that killing a cow for a tasty meal is an acceptable trade in animal suffering, therefore we can accept that furthering medical research in a particular field is an acceptable trade for animal suffering." is one that holds water. The analogies above, concerning murder and child neglect, don't have any parity to this argument, as in neither of the above cases is one half of the equation 'acceptable'. Murder is not accepted, nor are deaths by war (considered by many if not most a tragedy that is to be avoided at all reasonable costs)- In an imagined world where the murder of children -was- acceptable, I suspect there would be a strong argument to be made that charging people for 'child neglect' would be ridiculous and hypocritical. The fact that society kills millions of cows for hamburgers, however, is accepted by the majority of people in most cultures where animal testing occurs. The argument for animal testing is merely articulating that killing animals for research is a rough analog to killing animals for dinner. - Sean

Your argument Sean seems partly to be something other than that conveyed by the paragraph in question. Part of the argument you are making above seems be this: It is legal to use/kill animals for various reasons. Animal testing is one of those legal reasons. And that is a legitimate observation (vacuous in a philosophical sense, but accurate). But the section implies that because fewer animals are killed in testing than in food production, testing isn't a big deal. A numbers game, or a claim about the relative severity of a problem, doesn't necessarily make something unimportant. Why do the numbers matter in the argument? Rbogle 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're letting your opinion on this matter cloud your judgement- Animal testing isn't a problem to many people, and it is important to recognize that approaching this discussion with the presupposed position that animal testing is 'wrong' will inevitably create a biased product (I think this is why your analogy above equates food production with murder, and child neglect with animal testing). I'm interested in answering your question about what relevance there is in citing the number of animals consumed for other reasons in an article about animal testing. I believe that citing the number of animals consumed by 'other' means is a legitimate argument used by animal-testing advocates, but only if one accepts the premise upon which it is based which is that there is an equivalency between killing an animal to make a steak dinner, and killing an animal to make sure makeup works properly and doesn't cause skin irritation. If those two outcomes are of the same social utility, and I believe advocates of animal testing do see that equivalence, then I believe the argument continues something like this- It takes X many animals to feed Y people, but it takes Z many animals to provide Y people with nonharmful makeup (with an understanding that feeding Y people and providing Y people with nonharmful makeup produce equivalent social 'happiness'). If Z is considerably greater than X then, then while we can accept X many dead animals for a given amount of utility, we cannot accept Z many dead animals. Advocates of animal testing are saying that this is not the case- Z is considerably lower than X, and as we are accepting of X many deaths of animals for a given utility, we should then accept Z many deaths for an equivalent utility. Questions of efficiency require numbers, and advocates of animal testing are essentially arguing that their methods are of greater or equal efficiency in producing social benefits. -Sean

Given the polls, I'm not so sure that animal testing isn't a problem to many people, but that's another matter altogether. In order for a numbers argument to be germane, we would need to point to a justification for eating animals based on numbers. You argue that "It takes X many animals to feed Y people ... [and] we can accept X many dead animals for a given amount of utility [i.e. bacon]." I've never seen such an argument made; maybe there is a well articulated argument for eating animals based on this idea; I'd be very interested in seeing it. I've never seen anyone argue that 50 chickens per year per person is acceptable, but 75 (or some other number) isn't. And, wouldn't a numbers argument that talks about "acceptibility" based on some number require some calculus like this? On its face, the claim "It takes X many animals to feed Y people" seems faulty. I'm not too sure what it means. It suggests that (a) there is a given unit of 'animal' needed to meet basic nutritional needs of people, and that (b) this is how we arrive at the the number of animals we should use in food production; both parts are erroneous.Rbogle 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I have no interest in removing or editing this argument.Rbogle 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My addition to the lead

I've added material about Michael Balls's recent call for a review to the lead because we've been looking for some time for material to make the lead more balanced (as it seemed very pro-testing the way it was written) and I felt this material might provide it, especially as it's from a very moderate figure. The edit is:

In the UK, Michael Balls, professor emeritus of zoology at Nottingham University — who was involved in the passage of legislation regulating animal testing in the UK in 1985 and 1986 — has accused the government of allowing scientists to experiment on animals even when the benefits are in doubt, and has called for a review of the way licences are granted.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, SV. It seems very specific for the lead, and smacks of recentisim to me. I think its good material and should be added elsewhere in the article, but using Balls as an individual opoinion in the lead, just because he is the father of a close associate of the PM, is extreme. Moreover, his comments are specifically and explicitly about UK legislation, which hardly fits in the world-view our lead should present.

In addition, rather than highlight his (known) input into forming legislation 20 odd years ago or his emeritus position, I think it would be more pertinant to highlight his current position, as chairman for Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. He as a representative of a group with an obvious agenda in reducing animal experiments, and we should reflect that. If there is support for this addition - and I don't honestly think there will be - then at the very least it should be couched in terms of what FRAME think (in the same manner as the FBR sentence), not some hitherto non-notable, retired Prof, who gets attention now just because his son has climbed the greasy pole. Rockpocket 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rockpocket. There are better quotes from better people that could grace lead paragraph if you feel it needs to be more neutral. A non-extremist organisation (maybe PETA) must have good quotes that can be used? ImmunolPhD 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Balls statement should not appear in the lead. It seems to me that an encyclodedia article should shy away from reflecting political news as it happens. Maybe the Balls bit could be added in somewhere else.

Regarding the notion that FRAME's obvious agenda is the reduction of animal experiments, I think caution should be the watchword. See for example their seemingly close ties to the industry: [5] and FRAME's corporate sponsors: [6] Rbogle 15:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there are a lot of conflicting pieces of information here which do not all fit well into this article, I am creating a page for Balls & will remove most of the internal attempts at authority-giving in this paragraph. --Jaibe 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Having now done the research & built the page, I do think Balls is an interesting person, but I agree this quote is way too weak for the intro, feel free to move or just remove it. I can't see any way to edit an improvement based on that Guardian article.--Jaibe 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the Ball statement also. It is quite specific, and opens the door for either more similar statements or counterpoints to sustain balance of POV. If such a statement is desireable, there are balanced sources one could look for instead of inserting an obvious animal rights activist statement in the intro. For example, we could quote Nobel Laureate David Hubel, who wrote in the 1991 Annual Review of Neuroscience that animal rights activists could destroy the use, and benefits to society, of animals in experiments in the USA the way that they already have done in Great Britain. I'll be happy to grab a verbatim quote on Monday. --Animalresearcher 00:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

David Hubel, Nobel Laureate in Physiology, wrote on the opposition of research by animal rights activists, "It can, of course, tip the other way, as it did in Britain and much of the rest of Europe, where medical research that uses animals has been virtually destroyed". REF: Annual Review Neuroscience, 1991, Page 8--Animalresearcher 13:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

These 'he said, she said' leads are the very essence of what wikipedia does badly - resist at all costs. --Coroebus 20:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Specifically, I felt it was not reflective of the article, as only one ambiguous sentence refers to a call for review of the methods for granting licenses in Great Britain. It is simply too specific and detailed, and not reflective enough of the content of the article. --Animalresearcher 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Shelter statistics

Including information about shelter statistics does not make any sense in this article. It does not clarify the numbers given in the text - what could be more clear and enclyclopedic than documented numbers? Maybe the number of animals used in testing is equal to the number of automobiles produced - would including something like that clarify anything? Including numbers of shelter animals in this article does NOT clarify anything about animal testing, is not relevant, and will be reverted shortly.Bob98133 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree here. Rockpocket 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's an attempt to minimize the number of animals killed after experiments, but that number is unaffected by the number of animals killed for other reasons, and it's a violation of SYNT to include it without a source who makes that precise point in relation to testing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Benefits of scientific studies with animals

This section is broken down into two subsections: Veterinary advances and Medical advances (this seems a lack of parallelism.) In any case, the term "humane" is POV, and I will remove it.
Also, the claims themselves need better support. For instance, to support the claim that the polio vaccine was the result of research using animals, one of the citations is Sabin (1956). But Sabin testified under oath that, "the work on [polio] prevention was long delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys." [Statement of Albert B. Sabin, M.D. (before the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives.) Serial no. 98-48, April 26, 1984.] The other citation is Enders J, Weller T & Robbins F; Science (1949). But the title of this paper is: Cultivation of the Lansing Strain of Poliomyelitis Virus in Cultures of Various Human Embryonic Tissues. They published a related paper in 1949 titled Cultivation of poliomyelitis virus in cultures of human foreskin and embryonic tissues. (Proc Soc Exp Biol Med.) It was this work, developing methods to grow polio in vitro, that earned them the Nobel Prize.
The other claim that caught my eye is this: "Tenofovir, the anti-retroviral AIDS treatment, was discovered in Rhesus monkey studies at the University of Washington Regional Primate Research Center in 1996.[97][98]" The Wikipedia page on Tenofovir states: "Tenofovir was discovered through a collaborative research effort between Antonín Holý at the Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (IOCB) in Prague, and Erik DeClercq, Rega Institute for Medical Research, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium." (No mention of the Washington Primate Center.) Tenofovir's (PMPA) anti-retrovial action was a discovery made in human cell culture. See Balzarini J, Perno CF, Schols D, De Clercq E. Activity of acyclic nucleoside phosphonate analogues against human immunodeficiency virus in monocyte/macrophages and peripheral blood lymphocytes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1991 Jul 15;178(1):329-35.
I will look at the rest of the claims and post my reasons for deleting them here if the evidence cited is inconclusive or other verifiable evidence demonstrates that the claim is questionable. It seems to me that only claims with accurate verifiable citations should be included in this section.Rbogle 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You run the risk of being perceived as not acting in good faith when you delete referenced material instead of making the reference more accurate. For example, you deleted the polio claim and reference. In fact, Salk's team used thousands of Rhesus monkeys in cross-contamination tests to identify the three strains of polio. Then, they used Rhesus monkeys for the source of kidney cells which they cultured to develop the vaccine. In 1955, their introduction of the vaccine led to a 15-fold reduction in cases of polio in five years before (maybe 7 years later) it was replaced with a superior vaccine. Similarly, tenofovir was just another drug before its anti-retroviral efficacy was evaluated in Rhesus monkeys studies. Thereafter it was rushed into clinical use and treats thousands of people daily. The claims have been restored with the same, or similar, references, and careful consideration of the precise wording of the claim to the reference. --Animalresearcher 18:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AR, speaking of good faith, I'd appreciate it if you'd edit here with your regular account, and not the Animalresearcher one. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are simply mistaken SV. I have NEVER edited with another Wikipedia account, and have not edited via IP address for many many months (since the first time you brought it up). And even then, it was only because of some weird problem in which I would begin editing in my account, and when I posted "Save Page" it got posted anonymously. I'm still not sure why that happened, but there was NEVER an intentional astroturfing, and I do not and have not ever posted with another Wikipedia account. And I would certainly appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of something I do not do and have never done. --Animalresearcher 20:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the introduction of possibly dangerous SV40 in the Salk vaccine be included in this, or referenced? It is covered in polio vaccine - contamination concerns. While that doesn't speak directly to "benefits..." it seems like it should be mentioned here. Bob98133 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any ill effect to vaccinated people that received vaccines possibly containing a possibly dangerous chemical?--Animalresearcher 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a dengerous chemical - an unknown (at the time) virus that was included as a consequence of anmal testing. According to Wiki polio vaccine: SV40 was found to cause tumors in rodents.[36] More recently, the virus was found in certain forms of cancer in humans, for instance brain and bone tumors, mesotheliomas, and some types of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.[37][38] However, it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers.[39] -- Why would an article on animal testing not include results of an animal test when it's relevant to the topic? As that article says, it's controversial but needs more research to see if it has harmed humans. I received the Salk vaccine in school so I'm interested in this.Bob98133 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AR that acting in good faith requires not simply removing material simply because you personally deem its reference to be sub-par. If one thinks that a different citation is better suited, please change the citation. If you think that the information on the page is simply incorrect, that is another thing, and may require its own reference to prove that (especially if you are challenging a fact that is currently consensus)...

The policy says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores the material. It's not up to others to find appropriate sources, especially not in a contentious area. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't think it's a good idea to post overly technical science jargon to enage in parsing words about how animals were used to arrive at cures. The cited reference is fine, because among other things it says "approximately 9,000 monkeys, 150 chimpanzees and 133 human volunteers have been used thus far in the quantitative studies of various characteristics of different strains of polio virus." Alternatively, we could also cite any number of papers indicating Salk's original vaccine was derived from formalin-soaked monkey kidney cell lines (Kew O, Sutter R, de Gourville E, Dowdle W, Pallansch M, Vaccine-derived polioviruses and the endgame strategy for global polio eradication, Ann Rev Microbiol, 59: 587-635 (2005), PMID 16153180), or simply the Polio vaccine article. I fail to see why this is controversial. --chodges 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)</ref>

I'm unclear about the point of it. We can't list every single study in which animals were used, because they're used widely. Any studies we focus on should surely be examples of developments that could not have occurred in any other way, in the opinion of reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again, because you've not addressed the issue raised above that animal use actually slowed this research down, according to one of the researchers. Please address that before restoring. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume then that we now all agree that animals were used, and that JAMA is a reasonable source. So how does one argue with the fact that Jonas Salk's polio vaccine was made from a monkey kidney cell line, regardless of what Sabin said later? If anybody has bothered reading Sabin's JAMA paper, it is clear that animal studies were necessary in the development of the various vaccines. We cannot remove it simply because some people are refusing to read the citation. Furthermore, Salk's vaccine was (a) the first effective polio vaccine, and (b) developed using an animal-derived cell line. There can be no controversy, because with those two points the first vaccine could not have been made without animal studies. I point the reader to Polio vaccine for the references contained therein, as mentioned above. It is simply not scholarly to avoid adding polio vaccine because of one heavily cropped quote from Sabin that appears out of its context, and some skepticism. There is verifiability, and it is an important topic, so it belongs there. Lastly, if nobody can someone please point me to a publically available version of Sabin's full statement, then it is not verifiable and should not be considered. --chodges 23:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this new section should probably be a subsection of Animal testing#Applied research, rather than a complete section on its own. Rockpocket 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we break this up into three discussions (so I can keep track.) The easiest first since this must have been hammered out already by the Wiki Overlords.

"You run the risk of being perceived as not acting in good faith when you delete referenced material instead of making the reference more accurate." If the reference doesn't support the claim, then why try to find one that does? It isn't up to an editor to do someone else's work for them. So, I don't think it's an act of bad faith to remove a referenced claim or statement if the reference isn't supporting the claim. Taking the polio case as an example, if I had left the assertion, but then used Sabin's testimony that the monkey studies had delayed the vaccine, how would that have been any better?Rbogle 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Polio. The vaccine was the direct result of the discovery that the virus could be grown in vitro. I'm not at home right now, so don't have access to my library, but, somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million rhesus monkeys were used in polio research. But claims that the use of these five million monkeys is what led to the vaccine confuses casual and causal. It simply isn't true that any drug or vaccine that was tested on animals along the way was dependent on that animal use, and polio is a very good example.Rbogle 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing the later oral vaccine with the original vaccines. Prove to me that the development of the oral vaccine did not depend on what was learned with Salk's vaccine, which was made from monkey kidney cell lines. --chodges 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tenofovir (PMPA). PMPA was discovered in vitro. This is a matter of fact. It is true that it subsequently was tested in monkeys and mice after it was shown to be a potent anti-retroviral. But it isn't true, as Animalresearcher claims, that it "was just another drug." The short time between its discovery and testing in monkeys suggests that De Clercq's discovery was anything but run of the mill; people paid attention. But the issue at hand isn't whether the drug was tested on monkeys, but rather whether or not the animal research was instrumental in the drug's development; and as far as I can tell, it wasn't. I'd be interested in seeing something substantive that suggests it was. [As it turns out, the acyclic nucleoside phosphonates (the family of drugs including PMPA) have turned out to be effective against a very wide variety of DNA virus and retrovirus infections (see De Clercq 1997.)] Rbogle 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One way around the contention concerning the importance/unimportance of animals in the list of medical advances would be a mirror list calling into question any of those items for which references that suggest or claim otherwise can be cited.Rbogle 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the whole section is wrong-headed. We don't show that the animal studies were necessary or helpful (in the opinion of reliable sources). We present only primary sources to show that the studies took place. I'm also not keen on the medical/veterinary breakdown. I think we need to find secondary sources who list which advances relied on animal studies and whether they necessarily relied on them, or otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that many secondary sources can be found (AMP, FBR, RDS, etc.) that wil assert that every medical advance ever was dependent on animal experimentation.Rbogle 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented it out in the meantime. It's original research and highly contested. If someone wants to write a section on alleged benefits, we need secondary sources on both sides; no primary-source interpretations, please. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A nearly identical section exists at the vivisection entry.Rbogle 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about interpretations, but scientific results from primary literature. Can we not now rely on patents for products which cite animal usage? I guess the take-home is that we can only cite people's opinions now, and not data. Nice. --chodges 23:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you phrase it. It is a matter of record to note that animals were used in the generation of these treatments/drugs, and the primary sources are perfectly suitable for that. Calling these developments a "benefit" of animal testing is a judgement, because its not possible to know wether the same benefit could have happened without using animals (or whether it would have happened quicker, as AR folks often claim). That is where the secondary sources come in. I think we would be better off keeping the section as a record of what happened, rather than using it is a justification for animal testing. Rockpocket 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is that we would then need a section listing the studies where animal testing is alleged to have slowed things down, or given misleading results, and the article is already very long. I wonder about the point of more he said/she said, which is what this effectively is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this. That's like the Fox News version of NPOV. --chodges 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on people, this is not so controversial. Animal testing has resulted in medical advances (including those for animals). We cannot deny this and remove it from "wiki public record" simply because of an agenda. I'm becoming disillusioned. Please tell me why the section was commented out. It is primary literature, and cannot be removed because one does not like it. DO NOT DELETE MATERIAL, MAKE IT BETTER. --chodges 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, your material belongs in the Animal testing#Applied research, where there is already examples of how animals have been used for applied research into human and animal disease. There also also mention on polio and penicillin in the lead. The problem is not in describing the use of animals in experiments and advances of historical note, the problem is in calling the results a "benefit of animal testing". If you wish to edit the Applied Research section to include some of your examples, then do so, but I had already attempted to cover as many different types of research as I could, bearing in mind the length of the page already. Rockpocket 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh? A great many people deny that animal testing has resulted in medical advances, whilst others do think so. We can't unequivocally say that it did or didn't, we can only say that organisation or person X says that it did.

No, we can point to a specific case where animal work directly led to the first instance of an advance (like Salk's Polio vaccine). --chodges 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, when there is a case of a medical advance having come directly from animal studies, that is evidence that the animal study meaningfully contributed to the development of the medical advance. Just because it could have happened without animals doesn't mean that it did happen without animals. --chodges 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, removing information which is currently under discussion is an oft practised tactic when not doing so could result in revert wars. Wait until this discussion is finished before complaining.

Finally, as rbogle says - if a source doesn't support a statement, why should someone look for a source which does? It was the responsibility of the original poster to ensure that sources matched claims.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the polio vaccine there were two citations, one which supported, and one which was silent about it. So there was no need to remove the entire text, just the silent citation. Obviously, the editor did not bother to read both citations, which we should reasonably expect before deleting material. --chodges 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I can agree with you that the word "benefit" is a subtle POV issue. But this material belongs in the article somewhere. We cannot talk about animal testing without giving some byproducts of animal testing (like vaccines of historical note). Can we change the name to "byproducts of animal testing" (rather than "benefits"), and place it under #Applied research? --chodges 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Another idea is to have a separate page entitled Byproducts of animal testing, which could be linked to in the page with a small abstract form in this page. --chodges 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think instead of listing examples it should be written in text, like the the rest of the section. For example, already there is the text:

Cats, for example are used as a model to develop immunodeficiency virus vaccines due to their natural predisposition to FIV infection [76]. Their infection with a related feline virus, FeLV, makes cats a common model for leukemia research also. [77] Certain breeds of dog suffer from narcolepsy [78] making them the major model used to study the human condition. Armadillos and humans are among only a few animal species that naturally suffer from leprosy [79]. As it cannot yet be grown in culture, armadillos are the primary source of bacilli used in leprosy vaccines.

That's certainly not bad in and of itself, but what about things like polio vaccine, or organ transplant techniques? Sometimes the animals were used simply because they were a good mimic of the human systems, or were good hosts for viruses... it's not obvious in that case that a species-oriented list makes that any easier... --chodges 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason the historical use of animals in experiments that led to the discovery of certain treatments could not be phrased in a similar manner (either here or another page). The trick is keeping it neutral and not making claims that the animal testing was essential/key/important. Let the reader make their own mind up about its importance, necessity, or benefit. All we have to do is report the role animal testing as it happened.

I agree that it's important not to confuse the point of whether or not they were used with whether or not they were necessary. We should be careful to avoid saying anything about necessity of animal studies, simply that they were used to develop these advances. There are no POV issues with that. --chodges 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am perplexed at the suggestion above that "We can't unequivocally say that it did or didn't, we can only say that organisation or person X says that it did." That doesn't make any sense. Academic papers are reliable sources on scientific breakthroughs. We can say that, for example, research using armadillos resulted in the development of leprosy vaccines. That is a historical fact, published in academic journals and accepted by the scientific community. We don't have to write "scientist X claims..." as if it is a POV. Its not a POV, its a verifiable fact. What we can't say is something along the lines of, "If it wasn't for armadillo research we would never have leprosy vaccines because the bacilli cannot be grown in culture". That is a POV and would have to be attributed as such. There is an important difference between these, and we should not get confused between them. Rockpocket 00:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... avoiding POV issues though, should not prevent us from saying that animal studies were used in the development of some medical treatment. To avoid saying that fails to provide facts that support researchers' arguments for continued use of humane animal studies. --chodges 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this article, in its current form, is the result of the tension between two (or more) points of view. The lead second and third paragraphs set the tone for the rest of the article. It's almost as if every bit needs to be qualified. Beginning with the claim that "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century" and the rejoinder, "animal testing is unnecessary, poor scientific practice, poorly regulated,... the costs outweigh the benefits, ... animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation," makes it pretty difficult to write the rest of the text matter-of-factly.

It is a matter of fact that animals are used as models of essentially every facet of human biology. The rub (relative to this Wikipedia article) concerns the efficacy of the models -- their predictive value. There has been quite a bit written lately regarding the failure of the promise of basic biomedical science. (See for instance Rodriguez, WR Can biomedical research in the United States be saved from collapse? 2004 MebMD, Veritas Medicine. (long link, I guess Wiki doesn't accept tinyurls?)

Likewise, animals are used in basic biology where no claim regarding human or animal medical benefit is even implied. But this article isn't about that (maybe the title should be changed?), so inclusions of examples discussing such use should be looked at carefully.

And, animals can be used as assays. In the case of a canary in a mine, the canary can be an accurate early signal of failing air quality.

Polio: SABIN AB. Present status of attenuated live-virus poliomyelitis vaccine. J Am Med Assoc. 1956. isn't, apparently, available on-line. The JAMA archives go back to only the mid 1960s. The Science archives, on the other hand, are more extensive. In SABIN AB. Science. 1956, it seems clear that his research involved human volunteers all along the way. he discovered that various polio strains have various effects in two species of macaque, chimpanzee, and human. The trick here, if the claim is being made that the animals were instrumental and necessary, is to show that they were; and, from the Science paper, I think this would be a difficult claim to support given the range of results. Chodges, if you have access to the JAMA paper, I'd really like to read it. Rbogle 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the tension in the article should be resolved. The problem seems to boil down to two very entrenched viewpoints. I think the solution is to rely as much as possible on cited facts (rather than assertions), along with a careful editorial eye towards what developments have been of lasting historical importance. It's not clear to me that this page can address whether or not animal models have scientific value (although it would not be difficult to find a paper that boldly makes either claim); that issue carries with it a lot of POV issues. We should instead focus on important historical developments, along with documented numbers, regulatory issues, controversies, etc.

Let's illustrate something with a rather (hopefully) non-controversial example. FIV is imporant component of feline health, and also important to pet caregivers. It's hard to argue, for instance, that FIV vaccines could be developed without cat studies, so we should not avoid saying that if it's true. The same can be said of organ transplant techniques and immunosuppressive drugs, so again, let's not leave those out. I agree that we don't want an exhaustive list, but a list of historically important techniques and drugs should not be removed from the list simply because of some wiki-debates about their "real" utility in the technique. One cannot overcome a cited reference with mere skepticism.

With regard to Polio, I think I got the discussion off on the wrong track by citing an article written by Sabin. He, of course, was involved in the later development of the oral vaccine, which was much improved against Salk's vaccine. Now, one simply cannot argue that Salk's vaccine (the first effective, major vaccine for polio) took no part in animal studies. I hope that much is no longer being debated. Sabin's 1956 JAMA article, while overwhelmingly about public health progress, makes a nod towards all the animal studies, which I thought was sufficient. To clear the issue, perhaps we can cite another citation regarding Jonas Salk's vaccine. Unless, of course, we are debating who created the first effective polio vaccine. But that discussion shouldn't take place here, but perhaps in Talk:Polio_vaccine. Consensus is that Salk created the first vaccine for polio, and the Polio vaccine page has no problem with citing monkey kidney experiments. The only controversy here seems only to be about the fact that the article is written by Sabin, which seems to be beside the point.

We do have a rather extensive library here, and I do have access to Sabin's JAMA paper. You're right that it is not available on-line. I will see what I can do about getting an electronic scanned copy, but I'm a pretty busy person. Wikipedia isn't my first priority, so we'll see how that goes.

Lastly, basic biology research (esp. with things like C. elegans) does not fit semantically in this article. That is no more animal testing than jamming mascara into a cat's eye is developmental biology. It is an important topic, and I'm not sure it how it fits. Either the article title here should be changed, or there should be a branch to a separate page about basic biology page? I'm not sure. --chodges 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal. Leave the section deleted from the Animal Testing page. The "Medical and veterinary benefits of animal testing" could be merged/migrated to the history of animal testing page, which already includes some references. And there is certainly no problem including point/counterpoint on the positive and negative historical studies that have used animals on that page. As RockPocket pointed out, the motivation for animal testing is already included in the section on the types of studies. I don't see any point in opening the door for such a section that could become explosively huge on this page. I do disagree with the removal of the section "Official Statement from Representative Bodies" because those statements carry far more weight than the opinions of individuals. They are CONSENSUS views derived from people elected by citizens to govern, and thus are REPRESENTATIVE of the will of the population on the whole.--Animalresearcher 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced this section with the less POV title of "Outcomes of scientific studies with animals", this should be less controversial, since we all agree these studies took place, that they involved animals, and that these were their outcomes. Tim Vickers 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead figures on numbers used

These only include vertebrates, and certainly don't include the numbers of flies and worms used in research. I have checked and all the references only discuss vertebrate animals. Are there any objections to me correcting this? Tim Vickers 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No objection here. --chodges 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I'd support that. Rockpocket 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tim Vickers 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the UK at least, one invertebrate (Octopus vulgaris) is a protected animal. However, it is pretty much the only exception and there are very few used, I've modified the lead accordingly. Rockpocket 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why so much on vertebrates?

Almost all of the article deals with vertebrates, despite the large majority of animal experiments being experiments on invertebrates. Why is that? Tim Vickers 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good observation. This should probably be addressed. --chodges 02:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is section on invertebrates that makes it clear that they are the most numerous animals experimented on, and there are also examples of invertebrates in the type of research section. The problem is that there is little verifiable data available on the numbers of experiments or animals used, and there are few sources that use invertebrates in discussing animal research. What more would you like? Rockpocket 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend discussing at a minimum the approaches and results obtained from Drosophila genetics on development (Nobel prize 1995). A single sentence on that huge subject isn't really very balanced. Equally, Nematodes are crucial to the study of cell fate, differentiation and death (This was where apoptosis was discovered - Nobel prize 2002) If the article ignores the vast contribution that invertebrates have made to biology and molecular biology, it fails to give a clear idea of the role of animals in modern science. Tim Vickers 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but the brevity is a result of the tension between giving the range of experiments and animals used sufficient coverage and keeping this page from becoming overlong. If you feel able to contribute more, then please do so at the invertebrate subsection of Animal_testing#Species. Even better, if you are able to provide a comprehensive overview of research using invertebrates, then we can spin it out into its own sub-article. Rockpocket 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If brevity is the concern, it would make sense to concentrate on the more common and more important examples. At present this article could almost be renamed "Experimentation on vertebrates"! I'll draft out an expanded section on the species used in research, but this page is already over 100 kb, so adding without removal would seem a poor idea. I'd recommend reducing the sub-section in "Species" on non-human primates, which comprise less than 4% of the total procedures link but are given approximately 50% of the coverage in this section. What about shrinking the NHPs by about half and expanding the flies and nematodes to fill the space? Tim Vickers 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, this discussion has been had before (somewhere in the archives). The problem is that "importance" is subjective. I have argued "the number of animal used" angle myself, but the facts are that there is an inverse corrolation between the number of animals used by type, and how "important" society in general consider them. Both in terms of the law, and in terms of the opinion of the general public. There is huge debate and controversy on NHP testing, and so the sources discussing it largely outnumber those discussing research using invertebrates. The wider problem is that this article covers both the practicalities of animal testing, and wider societal implications of it. There has been discussions about breaking it up in the past, but we could never reach consensus on how to do it.

You are correct that this article is largely "Experimentation on vertebrates" (and it was even more to before I got to work on it last year), but that is largely what the public consider animal experimentation to be. Of course, if we have a comprehensive article on the much more common "Experimentation on invertebrates", we could split the article to reflect that and title them accordingly. Rockpocket 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose articles on controversial subjects will always show this lack of balance, with people interested in discussing the controversy, rather than giving due weight to all the important areas of the subject. I'll try making a new draft here with condensing the NHP section but retaining much of its content, balanced by expanding invertebrates The aim of this section seen to be to give an account for each species of:

1. Numbers used
2. Main uses and particular advantages/disadvantages
3. Any specific regulatory requirements

Any other things I should cover? Tim Vickers 19:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is huge already, but I'm not sure reducing the vetebrate section is the way to reduce it. Expanding invertebrates is welcome. Just as "endangered animals" garner more public attention and desire for information, same too with the vertebrates and particulary non-human primates, as they are the focus of the Controvery section too, and many of the images.

It might make more sense for something like the Cosmetics Testing to spin off to it's own page. Does it make much sense to have the "Alternatives to animal testing" page requoted on this page? Couldn't that get dumped and replaced by a link in See Also? Maybe "the arguments in brief" could be relocated to another page? - by the time you get that far in animal testing you're way past brief:)Bob98133 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't engage in original research by picking and choosing from primary sources. As far as possible, we should stick to what secondary sources focus on when they discuss animal testing. They don't, as a rule, discuss the ethics and efficacy of testing on fruit flies. Perhaps they ought to, but they don't. They tend to look at research on mammals, and in particular animals we identify with, such as dogs and non-human primates. They discuss cosmetics testing, inquiries, protests, legislation, the search for alternatives. If people want to create a separate article about testing on invertebrates, please go ahead, but this article shouldn't be expanded on that subject (or any other, given its length).

Several editors have always been confused on this point. This page doesn't exist to repeat the opinions of Wikipedians or of animal researchers. It exists to tell people what secondary sources are saying about animal testing — not about individual studies that used animals, but about the subject "animal testing." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the section on the use of invertebrate animals in experimentation, using high-quality secondary sources. As an example Can flies help humans treat neurodegenerative diseases? and Worms and Flies as Genetically Tractable Animal Models To Study Host-Pathogen Interactions, reviews on the efficacy of testing drugs and conducting experiments in flies and worms. Hopefully, if there are any sources people find unreliable, I should be able to find others. The use of invertebrates in medical and biological research is a particularly well-reviewed area. Tim Vickers 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Although C. elegans is used in some studies encompassing apoptosis, it doesn't seem accurate to say that work with C. elegans is responsible for the discovery of the process. Calling it a major success of the use of this organism seems a bit much. Maybe I'm missing something.Apoptosis says, "Apoptosis (Greek: apo - from, ptosis - falling) was distinguished from traumatic cell death in 1965 by John Foxton Ross Kerr while he was studying tissues with electron microscopes (Kerr JF. A histochemical study of hypertrophy and ischaemic injury of rat liver with special reference to changes in lysosomes. J Path Bact 1965; 90: 419-435.)" And does Schulenburg really say that these animals can't be used in vaccine research? I have access only to the abstract, but it says, "Using C. elegans to address these different facets of host-pathogen interactions provides a fresh perspective on our understanding of the structure and complexity of innate immune systems in animals and plants."Rbogle 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it was the work on C. elegans that showed that apoptosis was an active process under genetic control link, the phenomenon had been observed previously, but it wasn't known what it really was. I've reworded that a bit to cover your point. However, if an organism only has an innate immune system, you can't use it for vaccine research, which depends on the adaptive immune system. Tim Vickers 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: "C. elegans is used to analyse the functional roles of key parasite-derived molecules, with potential as vaccine candidates or drug targets." http://www.gla.ac.uk/vet/research/iandi/ I mention this to point out that innate limitations of organisms' biology that would seem to preclude their use in research, as Tim Vickers points out above in relation to C. elegans and vaccine research, are not barriers to their actual use. It might as well be said that every "model" organism is used for every area of research (can someone think of a species that isn't used in a general area of research?) Rbogle 15:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Tim. SV, I reverted your footnoting of the invertebrate caveat because this is not an article about vertebrates only, so its important that we note that the numbers quoted in the lead sentence are a fraction of all animals tested on. Rockpocket 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to that expansion. It's absurd (and somewhat disruptive) that just as I'm making efforts to remove material to subpages, a new editor arrives and massively expands the section on fruit flies. Please provide some secondary sources showing discussion of fruit flies as a central issue in the debate about animal testing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, SV. Well sourced material is always welcome. It can always be moved to a subpage later if need be, but calling good faith contributions "disruptive" is over the top. While I don't disagree there should be plenty of coverage of "cosmetics testing, inquiries, protests, legislation, the search for alternatives", there should also be a comprehensive description of what animal testing consists of. If there is not space for both, the former should be moved to a sub-article on Animal testing controversy or Animal testing debate and the main article should describe what the title of the article states. Tim's contributions describe, very nicely and well sourced, the types of experiments that involve well over half of all animals tested on. That is is not a "central issue in the debate about animal testing" is not relevent in a section that is not about the debate about animal testing. We should not let the agenda of those driving the debate influence our description of the subject.. Rockpocket 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not "the debate about animal testing", this article is about animal testing. Tim Vickers 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TimVickers. The subject of the article is about animal testing not "what people say about animal testing." I think that is a worthy topic to be contained within the article, but that is not the sole topic of the article here. The article should not be limited only to controversial animal studies. --chodges 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The title, Animal Testing suggests to me that the article is concerned primarily with research using animals that is claimed to be of more or less direct consequence to human health. The apoptosis bit doesn't really seem to fit. Maybe there has been some direct result of determining which genes in C elegans determine which cells die, and if there has, please send a link. The article isn't titled Research Using Animals, and if it was, we'd have to include field studies, agriculture, etc. The entries also shouldn't be a list of on-going speculation about the potential for Drosophila or other organisms to turn into productive models. You can't go from a research abstract saying, "Here we focus on the use of Drosophila to identify potential treatments for neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington's and we discuss how well these therapies translate into mammalian systems" to the assertion that fruit flies are vital to the study of neuroscience.Rbogle 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to rewrite the lead. At present it says "Animal testing or animal research refers to the use of animals in experiments." If you think this article should be on a more restrictive topic, such as Use of animals in medical research, we could discuss moving it to a new title. I've provided a free full-text link above, (link) for the C elegans results, these invertebrate studies have been and continue to be crucial to research on a wide variety of biological questions. They are vital to neuroscience. If you have a gene you think might be involved in the development of the brain, you can't delete it in people! Tim Vickers 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Which genes are we deleting in humans? Rbogle 15:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

None, you can't delete genes in humans, that was my point. However, you can delete a homologue of a human gene in C elegans in just a few weeks - just a few days if you use RNA interference. This is why these animal models are so valuable. Tim Vickers 15:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

C. elegans may be crucial for "a wide variety of biological questions," but this does not lead to them being vital to neuroscience. Words like vital and crucial should be reserved for things that are vital and crucial. Vital and crucial imply that we couldn't do without them. Not every investigative line can be crucial no matter what the industry might say. Rbogle 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is another issue that has been discussed at length previously. "Animal testing" was initially - for reasons I'm not aware of - chosen as a cover all term that equates with animal experimentation. I have argued that "animal testing" be used for an article describing testing of products on animals and "animal experimentaion" be used to describe research using animals. For various reasons consensus could not be reached on that. So as it is, this article should cover all research using animals, and there is a nod towards studies in zoos etc. We may wish to rename some of the subarticles to reflect this though, especially since invertebrates are typically used in pure research and there is very little "testing" going on. Rockpocket 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to rewrite the section on mice to give an idea of their role in current research, but I see all my contributions have been removed. That's rather dispiriting. Tim Vickers 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They haven't been removed, just moved to subarticles. Please do continue to rewrite it there. Rockpocket 22:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Length

I've managed to get it down from 104 to 85 kilobytes by moving cosmetics, non-human primates, rodents, and invertebrates to their own subpages; see article for the new titles. I'd also like to remove the for/against argument section. There's some good material in it, but it needs to be written up properly as text. I'll leave it in the meantime in case anyone is gripped by the urge to do that. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So you don't all have to search for them, the new sub-pages are: Testing cosmetics on animals, Animal testing on rodents, Animal testing on invertebrates, and Non-human primate experiments (this last one existed already, but I've moved most of the section here to that page instead). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice. What would be great is if we could make these sub articles really comprehensive now the constraints of space has been lifted, then we could have a little nav template for them at the bottom of each page. It might also be worth creating Animal testing (disambiguation) now we have multiple animal testing articles (leaving the main page where it is). Rockpocket 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a step in the right direction. Some of the organization still seems a little funky to me. For example, I think pure research should probably also be forked to a separate article, since neuroscience research on mice, for example, isn't animal testing (it's not testing any material or product, but rather, studying mouse biology). Does anybody else agree? --chodges 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with this. The researchers are testing ideas on animals in pure research and substances on them in applied research (broadly speaking). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Animal testing advocacy template to Template:Animal testing, and I've listed the subpages there. I also moved Non-human primate experiments to Animal testing on non-human primates so that it fits with the rest of the series. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Animal Rights template. It was HUGELY redundant with the newer animal testing template. --Animalresearcher 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference problem

The sentence:

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.

Is referenced to a document that does not appear to discuss this topic, what page of this document did the citation refer to? Tim Vickers 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, though I would add (in my experience) that is true and could be calculated from the numbers published animal returns (though that might be OR). Rockpocket 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The figures were in the refs being questioned; I've added yet another one. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything in these references that discusses postmortem procedures. Saying that animals are killed and then "dissected afterwards" seems unsupported, dissection would surely be relatively rare, especially in large-scale toxicology testing. I've removed this part until we can find a source that states that this is true. Tim Vickers 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep undoing my work. You've been warned about following me around before. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If postmortem procedures are in fact cited in the sources you added, what are the page numbers that are they discussed on? Tim Vickers 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

I think we have too many figures in the article, which makes it almost unreadable and also hard to use as a resource. It doesn't really matter that 1.59 million of X were used in 2003, 1.53 million in 2004, and 1.56 million in 2005. I'll be going through removing some of these over the next few days hopefully. I'll try to pick one figure for each thing that looks representative, and leave it at that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the error in ref 44 that corrupted most of the subsequent citations, are refs 44,45 and 46 as you intended now? I had to guess which parts you wanted to include. Tim Vickers 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments in brief

Any ideas about what to do with this section? [7] As written, it's a bit of an embarrassment e.g. "Humans that use medicine derived from animal research are healthier." Healthier than what? Than humans who don't use prescribed drugs even when they need to? Than humans who don't use drugs because they don't need to? Than humans who rely on alternative treatments? Than humans who use prescribed drugs that aren't tested on animals (but all are)? It's senseless.

A lot of the rest of it suffers from the same problem. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that claim was a bit strange, perhaps an "English-not-first-language" problem? Rewritten to make sense, based on source given. Tim Vickers 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that entire section was a bit stupid. There could be enough information for a subarticle on this Views of animal testing or something, but it would be much better if it was written rather than listed as bullet points. Rockpocket 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it rewritten with claims attributed in the text. I don't think it's good enough to say "Some opponents claim X," then when you hunt down the source, you find it's a claim on mywebsite.com. We need to write it in the form of "One of the strongest arguments in favor of X, according to the Reseach Defence Society, is ..." and we should stick to the strongest arguments for and against, and not include arguments that make either side sound foolish. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal's Used

Tim Vickers wrote: "removed text based on unreliable self-published website." And, he did this in about two seconds after the reference was added; which makes it pretty clear that he took about zero seconds to consider the documents included there. In point of fact, the organization's claims regarding USDA misreporting have been covered by major media outlets. http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/media-20070608.html
I'm not too sure what "self-published websites" means in this case. Vickers, are you claiming to be an expert on this organization? It seems to be a secondary source that the media covers with some regularity. I'm putting the reference back, before removing it again, please discuss doing so here first and seek some consensus. Rbogle 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If the claims made by this organisation have indeed been covered by major media outlets, cite these news stories produced by reliable sources rather than "all-creatures.org" which is not a reliable source by any stretch of the policy. You need to cite the news reports themselves, rather than an unverifiable copy of what might be a news story on a highly-biased animal-rights website. Tim Vickers 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it for you, not so hard. (link). Now all you need to show is that the opinions of this single minor group are notable and should be given equal weight to the USDA. Tim Vickers 21:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I also can't see why that was removed. It's a story by UPI. The courtesy link doesn't matter. Also, all the sources we use in this article are biased. We don't exclude sources because they support animal rights, just as we don't exclude them because they don't. If it's self-published, then it can only be used as a courtesy link, but that's aside from the animal-rights issue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Use the news organisation website, rather than a private website with an obvious and strong bias hosting what might be an accurate copy of a news story, but might not. Do you really see "all-creatures.org" and "http://www.upi.com/" as equally-reliable sources? Tim Vickers 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy links are fine. If you feel a website is so unreliable that it might have altered a news report, then change the link to the original news report. But please don't remove sources and material, and then start long discussions about it on talk. It's faster for everyone and less disruptive just to insert another link. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "all-creatures.org" and "http://www.upi.com/" can be equally reliable sources. If we begin to question bias, every paper in a journal with an editoral opinion that animal research is crucial' and vital should be dismissed out of hand, and we should cite only "mainstream" news outlets.Rbogle 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin says: "please don't remove sources and material, and then start long discussions about it on talk." For the record, I'd just like to note that this rule of yours seems only to apply to statements and article material you agree with; see the whole polio vaccine discussion above for one example where you defend someone doing just this. You supported removing material from the article while we "discussed" it here (although your edit was really more a way to pigeonhole the discussion). I've spent my time here and tried to contribute to make this a better article, but I can't stomach your oversight, SlimVirgin, because your approach is rather inconsistent and unscholarly. --chodges 04:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Since we have sorted out the sourcing problem, no we just need to decide if the opinions of this single minor group are notable enough to be included, or if that would be giving them undue weight. Compared to the USDA, how notable do you think this group is? Tim Vickers 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

USDA/APHIS has proven to have many problems. Given the fact that at least two APHIS inspectors have quit because of what they see as a disinterest in the agency concerning animal welfare why would anyone consider their statements regarding the numbers of animals used to be reliable? Rbogle 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think this group is indeed notable enough for this article (700 Google hits on its name, 64 Google News hits if you go back to 1997) why is it not even listed in any of the other articles on more specific subjects? It isn't in animal rights, animal liberation movement, list of animal welfare groups or even list of animal rights groups. Not exactly high-profile. Perhaps it would be better to use the comments of one of the major animal rights groups on this report, rather than giving undue weight to a minor fringe group. Tim Vickers 22:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, which group specifically are you talking about? The group criticizing the USDA reporting in the linked press release is SAEN, or Stop Animal Exploitation Now! The group's director is a long-time observer and critic of USDA's reporting and oversight. He must have close to two decades of experience. If he was working for, say HSUS, and published a report under their banner would you still be raising this concern? I think what is important is the substance rather than the letterhead on which a report is printed.

What constitutes a "fringe group"? I don't think that "notability" is a reasonable criteria for determinging the appropriateness of a reference. If it is, then we need to go back and look carefully at any reference to any published research and find some way of deciding whether the author is notable.Rbogle 12:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a sourced comment, but a personal one. The USDA's oversight process is substantially variable from office to office, and what is considered acceptable and humane by the USDA similarly varies from office to office. The East-West regional office differences are very real, and I am quite sure that if an APHIS official went from one office to the other, it would result in exactly the sort of controversy represented by the article included on the animal testing page. The statements that the USDA animal census counts are not accurately representing the AWA-covered species is true lunacy though, just pure propaganda put forth by Budkie in the hopes that someone might actually believe him. The comments on the study of IACUC are, while sourced, a little misrepresented because of the experiments chosen in the study. There are well-published guidelines for analgesia, anesthesia, euthanasia, food and fluid restriction, and it is normal course of duty for EVERY IACUC to ensure that the experiments fall within these guidelines. There are also substantial gray areas, and as noted one of those is what types of experiments are classified as "unrelieved pain and suffering", "pain and suffering relieved by appropriate anesthesia and analgesia", and "not more than momentary pain and distress". As an example, intentionally inducing diabetes is something that arguably should be "unrelieved pain and suffering". It is usually classified as "relieved pain and suffering" in the US system, and different IACUCs will have little agreement on that classification. However, you will not find such disagreement on what constitutes appropriate euthanasia, because everything is referred to the AVMA reports. Again, nothing sourced in this comment, but I don't have a problem with the IACUC criticism being appropriate for this page (and I sit on an IACUC). It does tend to take up a lot of bytes with the blockquoting, it would be nice if its points could be made succinctly without the blockquotes (although I understand how that comes about too). --Animalresearcher 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"... true lunacy though, just pure propaganda..." Based on what? The denial of Plous seems very common among those who have a stake in the status quo. Rbogle 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement on animal numbers from Budkie is unrelated to the Plous study.--Animalresearcher 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but since you included comment on both in your single paragraph comment, I responded to each in the same way. Sorry if this confused you. Rbogle 14:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not denied or refuted anything produced by Plous. I did refer to his original paper. --Animalresearcher 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the substance, but the notability of information that relates to the WP:UNDUE policy. For instance, if a animal rights group with five members releases a press statement contradicting the World Heath Organisation, giving equal weight to the two opposing viewpoints would be a violation of our policies. So we need to know how notable and prominent "Stop Animal Exploitation Now" are compared to the USDA. Going from raw Google hits, SAEN is 40,000 times less notable than the USDA, so to follow the policy we need to give their views many thousands of times less prominence than the views of the USDA. Tim Vickers 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with your interpretation. Verifiability seems to be a key ingredient. The USDA says prominently that "Animal care and use in the United States is a controversial topic with varying points of view from the public, animal rights groups, breeders, research laboratories, and others." [8] USDA seems to be acknowledging that animal rights groups are significant participants in this controversy. But it is a current matter of fact that they hold a minority position. If we try to balance the controversy by the number of "raw hits" an organization gets, and then weigh that against the number of "raw hits" an active agency of the US federal government gets, and use those numbers in an attempt to "balance" the discussion, I don't see how that would be a fair reflection of the topic. (Especially given the introduction to the article, which echos the USDA report.) With this in mind, given Budkie's long work with national animal rights organizations (and now his own,) I don't see how weighing SAEN against USDA would be a fair discriminating method.

If you hold the opinion that those who question the efficacy of animal models as reasonable predictors of human disease and drug response are no different than Flat Earthers (to cite the Wikipedia example at WP:UNDUE, then of course, you might see all outside criticism of "animal testing" as too light weight for serious consideration.

But, more to the point of your example: "For instance, if a animal rights group with five members releases a press statement contradicting the World Heath Organisation, giving equal weight to the two opposing viewpoints would be a violation of our policies." If the small group had somehow managed to get ahold of internal documents from WHO exposing some hideousness -- maybe human trials with a predictable and not insignificant liklihood of mortality, and they made those documents public, would it be fair to spend 99.99% of an article's space on WHO's spin? It isn't so clear to me, that with contentious topics, that a simple recitation of the "majority" opinion serves any purpose other than to snuff out the minority's concerns. Rbogle 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No. If a tiny group made any such credible claim they would be reported and discussed widely and other more notable groups would comment. The issue would therefore become a valid topic. If this is indeed a credible claim made by this group, have any of the main animal rights groups commented on their claims? Having some reaction from a group like PETA the US Humane Society would go a long way towards convincing me that we aren't giving undue weight to a fringe group with no constituency. Tim Vickers 00:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wesleyan Press Release and IACUCs

The Wesleyan press release significantly misrepresents its source. The source says the agreement in review critera were statistically significant but lower than expected, for example, not statistically unrelated as claimed in the Wesleyan press release. The reviews were overwhelmingly more negative at the second committee (the "blinded one") than at the first committee, in contradiction with the press release. And the important caveat that the first committee had a working relationship with the investigators and inspected their work regularly, and the second committee had no such relationship, is present in the original article but omitted from the press release. Relying on lower sources (secondary vs tertiary) is generally better encyclopaedia policy. I am restoring my edits for these reasons, and because they are more representative of the scientific study, and more informative on its results (for example including a breakdown of the types of evaluations that were and were not statistically related). This does not delete the results of the Plous study - it refers to them directly and deletes the Wesleyan press release which is verifiably inaccurate.--Animalresearcher 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One problem with referrng directly to the article is that it isn't accessible to most readers. The link on the press release page gives a reader access to the original paper.

I've run into various denials of Plous before, and comments like yours have made me wonder whether I had misunderstood the paper. So I wrote to Plous and asked him about some of these various criticisms. Here's what he wrote bak to me

Dear Rick,

The study that Dr. Harold Herzog and I conducted was published by Science as a Policy Forum because the topic of our research concerned policy issues. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, endorsed by the Animal Behavior Society, had the cooperation of 50 randomly-selected animal care committees (making it one of the largest such studies ever conducted), and was rigorously peer reviewed by both NSF and Science. Thus, our critic is factually mistaken in claiming that the research was not peer reviewed.

The inescapable fact of the matter is that IACUCs and their members do not show strong agreement when asked to evaluate animal research protocols. Indeed, as we pointed out in Science, even when members are given identical protocols under identical conditions, their agreement falls into the "poor" range of interrater agreement. We also reported that at the committee level, 17 protocols were categorically disapproved (not simply "deferred") by the second committee, even though 16 of these protocols had been approved by the first committee. Equally striking, of the 72 protocols "approved as written" by the first committee, only 6 received that evaluation by the second committee.

If our critic does not find these results troubling, I would ask two simple questions: (1) What evidence is sufficiently compelling to warrant concern? (2) If the study were done with IRBs (reviewing protocols with human subjects) rather than IACUCs (reviewing protocols with non-human animals), would you be equally unperturbed? After all, a bedrock assumption of the protocol review system is that IRBs and IACUCs are able to reliably reject unethical studies.

You are welcome to post this response if it would help set the record straight.

In my opinion, your criticism of the press reless and of Plous are more appropriate for a letter to Science than to an objection to inclusions of both here.Rbogle 14:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in what you claim Plous wrote to you, that in any way addresses any inaccuracy in my edit on the animal testing page or the caveat of their work. And you continue to blockquote the Wesleyan press release which is verifiably inaccurate. The major caveat is, Plous' first committees had many interactions with the investigators they were reviewing over years in most cases. They investigated those labs. They witnessed the procedures. The second committees, in contrast, were completely blind to the labs, and had no working knowledge of them. That is, in my view, a MAJOR limitation of the initial work, and one that is acknowledged in the article itself. And you cannot really mean that it is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia to refer to a press release than to the original research. That directly violates WIKI policies on verifiability when it is verifiable that the press release in notably inaccurate in the multiple ways I enumerated above. And, once again, I IN NO WAY refuted or contradicted any claim of Plous or said it was not peer reviewed or anything of the sort. I simply rewrote the text to refer to the original article, its results, and the caveats that it includes in the article that limit its interpretability. --Animalresearcher 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you interpreted Plous in your description.

Maybe I'm confused about primary and secondary sources. Isn't the paper itself a primary source?

Also, while you read the fact that the IACUCs "had many interactions with the investigators they were reviewing over years in most cases. They investigated those labs. They witnessed the procedures" as a reason to question the opinions of the second IACUC, and I think it is a reasonable assumption, and one that Plous acknowledges, the drastic disagreement suggests that this unproven hope isn't based on fact.

At the University of Wisconsin, a researcher there, Dr. EI Terasawa, has been studying the stalk median emminence's response to any of about 50 different neuroactive chemicals for about two decades. The monkeys she was using were being chaired for up to four and a half days at a time while she persused their brains. Coincidendally, this was a lab that APHIS happened to look at during a recent inspection. The violations they noted were etensive and resulted in the local IACUC suspending her access to animals for two years. The point of this is that this IACUC, according to your claim, should have been a good judge of her procedures because of their intimacy with her protocols. And whether they were or not, the fact remains that APHIS found multiple serious violations that the IACUC had to acknowledge. My reading of Plous seems to verify that self-policing doesn't seem to work very well, and that acquaintences are more apt to give each other much more benefit of doubt and leeway than a less prsoanally involvd third party typically does.

I particularly liked the way you suggested that I concocted the Plous' reply. Rbogle 15:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that because it did not address anything that I wrote about his study. You still have not addressed the issue that the press release is VERIFIABLY inaccurate. I definitely believe, and this possibility is acknowledged in the Plous work, that a major cause of the low cross-IACUC reliability in their work occurred because one group of IACUCs had working knowledge of the labs asking for approval, and the other was blinded. This is a limitation in study design, and assessing cross-IACUC reliability would be better done if NEITHER IACUC had working knowledge of the labs asking for approval. Or, if possible, both. Nonetheless, this is part of the discussion near the end of the Plous article, referring to it is simply referring to the source and not original research. --Animalresearcher 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Plous says

Protocol evaluations from the originating committee and from the second committee were not significantly related to one another... This absence of a relation was found not only across the full set of 150 protocols, but for relatively invasive research involving procedures such as electric shock, food or water deprivation, surgery, and drug or alcohol research... for protocols involving euthanasia... and for protocols in which the reviewing IACUC expected animals to experience a significant amount of pain.... Thus, regardless of whether the research involved terminal or painful procedures, IACUC protocol reviews did not exceed chance levels of intercommittee agreement.

the press release says

The results showed that approval decisions were statistically unrelated. In most cases, proposals that were disapproved by one committee were approved by the second committee.

And, just so I understand you, your claim is that "the press release is VERIFIABLY inaccurate"? If that's actually your claim, then I think you must be intentionally denying the plain facts of the study and the authors' rather straightforward statements and the plain facts disclosed by the study.

The study deserves highlighting in the article because of the key importance IACUCs have to any approximation of compliance with the Act, both by the letter and the spirit of the law. People reading the article could come away with the impression that US labs operate under strict and meaningful guidelines. And, we certainly should include reference and explanation of the Act's requirements, which the article does, but likewise, the current best research on the IACUC system shows that they are unreliable. "... IACUCs will rarely disapprove of protocols that other committees feel should be rejected." Rbogle 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right. So when I went to read the study, it shows statistically significant (but low) agreement between the two groups of IACUCs on some of the comparison parameters, but not on others. Approval decisions, in particular, WERE statistically significantly related. Classification of studies into USDA categories was not statistically related. And the caveat is VERY important. They made two groups of IACUCs. The original review committee, which was evaluating investigators at the institution where they were housed, and the second IACUC, which was elsewhere. One finding was that the second IACUCs were overwhelmingly harsher on the protocols than the original IACUCs. That can be because the IACUCs are giving a break to people they know, or it could be, as suggested in the article, that the original IACUCs understood the animal testing process at their site a lot better than the second IACUCs. Also, only behavioral studies were evaluated. Those are far more difficult to classify and evaluate than something like a toxicological study (in which case IACUC agreement should have been much higher). In short, I think the study only evaluated a small fraction of types of studies assigned to IACUCs, and had significant issues in study design, which is why its impact on the system has been minimal. And these points would be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with the IACUC system and the study. The press release, OTOH, is verifiably inaccurate and good encyclopaedia policy would be to remove it en todo from the page. Do you really want to defend leaving verifiably inaccurate material on the page?

Please note that my edits did NOT remove highlighting of the study from the animal testing page, OR refer to it inappropriately or inaccurately. All I did was remove the verifiably inaccurate press release about the Plous study, and replace it with the verifiably accurate paragraph I wrote which referred directly to the SAME STUDY, and this will be plain as day to anyone who looks at the edits.--Animalresearcher 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I don't think the press release is "verifiably inaccurate," your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

"I think the study only evaluated a small fraction of types of studies assigned to IACUCs, and had significant issues in study design, which is why its impact on the system has been minimal." Well, I think the study had a small impact because those within the system are resistent to change. Further, if the study had such a poor design, and those within the system actually had an interest in the reliability of IACUCs, by now someone would have conducted a second or third study with any impovements they thought might have weakened the original, but no one has. This doesn't speak convincingly that there is much serious consideration given to the process. The system's response has been denial rather than careful falsification, thus denying science itself. Rbogle 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AMA Membership

https://membership.ama-assn.org/JoinRenew/search.jsp?checkXwho=done# - not physician-only group, med students can also be members Bob98133 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted, and amended.--Animalresearcher 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful references?

• Mukerjee M (1997). "Trends in animal research". Sci. Am. 276 (2): 86–93. PMID 9000767.
• Granstrom DE (2003). "Agricultural (nonbiomedical) animal research outside the laboratory: a review of guidelines for institutional animal care and use committees". ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. 44 (3): 206–10. PMID 12789021.
• Hammond AC (1994). "Animal well-being in pharmacology and toxicology research". J. Anim. Sci. 72 (2): 523–7. PMID 8157540.
• Matfield M (1996). "The ethics of animal research. A special lecture to the Japanese Association of Laboratory Animal Science 6th June 1995". Exp. Anim. 45 (3): 209–15. PMID 8840136.
• Gannon F (2007). "Animal rights, human wrongs? Introduction to the Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research". EMBO Rep. 8 (6): 519–20. PMID 17545989.

Opponents of animal testing

Let's clarify the meaning of this and its siter section. Is a reference need to support an observation that a particualr argument has been made, or support for that particular argument.

If each of the statements in this section require a reference, then why don't the ones in the pro- section? Throwing in the "reference needed" thingys all of a sudden on a page this actively edited seems more like trouble-making than helpful editing. to me.Rbogle 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Refs are needed to support the statement made in the sentence. For example if you say "X says that Y is true and Q is false." you need a ref to either them saying this or a reliable source stating that they say this. As a general comment in referencing in this article, there are too many broken and ill-formatted references - for example <ref name=USEUnumbers/> seems to have been lost in the recent reorganisations. Other refs end at broken links or general pages with no specific info. This needs sorting out. Tim Vickers 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But in this special case, the sections begin: "Testing advocates argue that:" and "Opponents argue that:" So, apparently, to reference the sentence [Opponents argue that:] "Some drugs have dangerous side-effects that were not predicted by animal models. Thalidomide is often used as an example of this. [citation needed]" all that is needed is a reference to a source that demonstrates an opponent of animal testing stating that thalidomide is an example of a dangerous side effect that wasn't predicted by animal testing.

Likewise, if we are seeking balance, the statement [Testing advocates argue that:] "There is no substitute for studies of the infection of a host. For example, infection with hepatitis" [unreferenced, and oddly so since someone went through the opponent section and deleted many references and added the "reference needed" tags, Chodges?] needs only a reference to some advocate of animal testing making this claim, not proof of the claim's veracity.Rbogle 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. The "There is no substitute..." claim is referenced, but, for instance, "There is no substitute for psychiatric studies (e.g., antidepressant clinical trials) that require behavioral data." isn't.Rbogle 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, if you say somebody has an opinion, you need a reference to support that they hold this opinion. This isn't a special case, this is just standard practice. It would be best to trim these lists to a few major arguments and source them from a few notable and highly reliable sources. If you want to do this for the "critics" section, I'll do it for the "advocates" section. Tim Vickers 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone else gets to it first, I may be able to work on this tomorrow. Rbogle 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We all know that unsourced facts should be tagged or removed. I noticed a few statements were either synthesis or uncited. Synthesis got removed and unreferenced facts got tags (this is pretty much SOP for Wikipedia). I could not easily find references that supported the claims being made, so I tagged them. I agree with you that uncited statements in the "pro" section should also be tagged, removed or cited, but apparently I missed the one. In previous versions of the Vivisection article, I did the same for the "pro-animal use" section; I'm not pushing POV, just verifiability and NOR. I agree with Vickers that the list of arguments should be limited to prominent ones by reputable groups (on both sides of the debate). --chodges 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Length and Controversy

In working on the page on Animal testing on non-human primates I noted that the allegations of abuse on that page, and the controversy on the animal testing page, have a few things in common. In fact, EVERY item on the NHP page was also on the animal testing page. The animal testing page is 90 kb, well above the 32 kb recommended article size. If a pointer is placed on the animal testing page referring to the Animal testing on non-human primates page, it will save another 11 kb. The recommended, "guideline" article size is 32 kb, so even with this change animal testing would still be more than double the recommended size. In "being bold", I completed the duplication of the controversy subsections by listing the UCLA incident on the Animal testing on non-human primates page, and then removed the primate controversy subsections from animal testing and put in a pointer stating that further controversy involving non-human primate testing was found on the Animal testing on non-human primates page. The change to the animal testing page was reverted as vandalism despite a very clear summary statement as to intent and process. Is there some reason that the items of controversy have to stay on the main page AND be included on the break-out pages? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of splitting the page to come close to stylistic page size limits? --Animalresearcher 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd noted this already and warned Burntsauce (talk · contribs) about reverting good faith edits as "vandalism". Personally, I think there should be some content about controversy on the main page, but agree the the detailed primate cases could be moved the the sub-article. Rockpocket 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bunching"

This seems very far-fetched. Animal testing uses animals bred for the purpose, with a single genetic background and often in disease-free conditions. Domestic animals are completely unsuited for experiments. If this section isn't backed by some good references over the next few days I will remove it. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a bill in Congress right now that will prohibit random source animals from being used in testing. http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/theft/pettheft.html There is speculation that animals are sold from shelters to USDA class B dealers, or the Class B dealers themselves, may be obtaining animals illegally. However, research societies counter that it is already illegal to handle stolen animals, and that anyone dealing in animals that end up in researcher hands must be licensed by the USDA. If the bill passes, then older domesticated animals (ie: dogs and cats) will become a lot more rare in research, which will make studying some types of disease that are more prevalent in older animals a lot harder. As an aside, in all but 13 states, animals from shelters may be sold to Class B dealers instead of being euthanized. These can very well be discarded pets, but are not "bunched". The citation I provide above can be used to say "Opponents of animal testing claim:" because clearly opponents do make such a claim. The second section though "Testing labs prefer tame domestic animals over wild strays from the city pound, because they are easier to handle." I cannot find a reference for, nor does it make sense to me as something opponents of testing would claim. HTH --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ex-domestic animals will also have an unknown medical history and may or many not have been vaccinated/undergone surgery etc, why would people chose to use such animals in research? This suggestion fails to make sense on so many levels. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It used to be quite common. Not all research depends so critically on vaccination etc. For example, some people may be interested in how the inferior colliculus of the cat responds to sound, and any old cat would suffice for research needs. The animals are picked up from the pound, anesthetized, studied, and euthanized. However, for this to work today, a Class B dealer must be involved, and if the animal was a pet, it would be illegal in 13 states. In any case, my point is that different levels of requirements occur in different sorts of testing, and domestic animals are fine for much of it. But I would remove the second sentence of the "bunching" claim if a cite doesn't show up soon. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this Biased?

Reading this article, it seems that it is biased against animal testing. It seems that the article is mainly information dealing with the opponents and their viewpoints with only one section (7.1 Advocates of animal testing) dealing completely with the proponents.

Does anyone else get that feeling? Could anyone who knows more about the pros of animal testing help balance the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.33.141 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the animal activists want the proof of a negative. Prove that not doing animal testing is dangerous to humans. Some activists don't care if it's dangerous to humans. Since the FDA and drug approval agencies in other countries require testing on animals, you can't prove the argument. When you go back to the biggest cases of problems before animal testing (e.g. thalidomide) they say it was a fluke. When you point out what animal testing has contributed to (e.g. every prescription drug for about the last 40 years) the argument is then that we don't know if animals helped because the had to use animals. So in their minds they are always right and they soothe their consciences by using products not tested on animals (because animal testing already proved all ingredients as generally safe). Don't eat anything (organic fertilizers are form animal origins so you exploit animals by eating produce too), don't take any medicines (even those herbal remedies were probably grown with animal fertilizers!) and don't breathe; you're using oxygen that the animals could use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.3.58 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not terribly clear what you're saying. Many drugs that have been tested on animals have proven harmful to people. Many drugs have been rejected because they did not work on animals, but they may have worked on people. A quick look at iatrogenic diseases shows that a fairly large percentage of these are due to drug reactions or interactions, so required animal testing has not been revealing these dangers. Whether someone chooses to use or not use animal tested drugs is not relevant to the efficacy of animal testing of drugs. Thalidomide was tested on animals, as was Vioxx, HRT and other drugs that have later proven harmful to people. While you claim to be speaking for animal activists, you might get a clearer picture of this issue by focusing on events that can be documented. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thalidomide is perfectly useful as a drug unless the patient is pregnant. It was never tested on pregnant animals before being made available for human use. If it had been then the tragic results would have been averted. When, later, it was tested birth defects were seen in mice, rats, hamsters, rabbits, macaques, marmosets, dogs, cats, fish, baboons and rhesus monkeys. If you are going to make statements such as "Thalidomide was tested on animals" please don't mislead by omission. Rockpocket 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't know that about thalidomide. It's odd that it was tested on pregnant animals after it was withdrawn for use by pregnant people.Bob98133 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a historical example of why the consensus among the biomedical research and clinical community is that prior testing on animals is paramount for minimizing tragic adverse drug reactions in humans. If thalidomide was discovered today, the tragedy would not have happened, since we have in place laws that require more rigorous testing. During this testing process, numerous other drugs have been shown to have teratogenic effects, and thus assigned to a restricted pregnancy category. If it was not for those animal trials, the lesson learned from thalidomide, many would likely have resulted in another tragedy. Rockpocket 01:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the only POV about this, though. There's an article about it here. Also, it's odd that tests were conducted on pregnant mice, rats, hamsters, rabbits, macaques, marmosets, dogs, cats, fish, baboons, and rhesus monkeys after it was confirmed that the drug causes birth defects in humans. That makes a mockery of the argument that animal testing is only performed when necessary to safeguard human health. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not the only POV, but it is the strong consensus among clinicians, researchers and physicians - those who have studied the data. Its largely because of the thalidomide tragedy that the current testing regulations were put in place. Thus exhaustive thalidomide testing was done retroactively, to show how the regulations would stop a similar thing happening again (and indeed, it has).

By the way, that source is just plain misleading, if you look at the primary data it simply doesn't hold up. The authors simply cherry pick experiments to suit their argument. The suggestion that it proved very difficult to duplicate the abnormalities and only eventually after administrating high doses of thalidomide to certain species of rabbit (New Zealand White) and primates could similar abnormalities be found is utter nonsense. In fact, there a many strains of rabbit that thalidomide has shown to be teratogenic in including Himalayan rabbits, JW-NIBS rabbits and various hybrids. Thats just one minor example of the misleading statements in that article, but then one can hardly expect a nuanced review of the literature from the "experts" at the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research. This is part of the problem about thalidomide, the majority of the public get their information from biased sources who have an agenda to push, rather than study the data itself. Rockpocket 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading Croce earlier to answer the question below, I noticed that he addresses the thalidomide issue. He says the doses administered to reproduce the results in pregnant animals were absurdly high. He cites material presented at the Contergan/Alsdorf trial, which showed that mice were given half a gram of thalidomide per kilo of body weight, which he says is a dose 600 times greater than would be given to human beings. He argues that any substance would become toxic when introduced invasively at those doses. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

The topic is controversial. Opponents argue that animal testing is cruel and unnecessary, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation.

This is unacceptably POV. Especially as it is in the header, it should cover both sides if it is discussing controversy.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

very very biased.

I intend to delete the Ingrid Newkirk quote regarding animal testing. It's unnecessary at best and not worthy of prominent display in an encyclopedia at worst. I'm "securing consensus" before I do this. Budjoint (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would have deleted it myself if I had noticed it slip in there. Newkirk is certainly not an "expert" on animal testing and her emotive language is particularly ill suited to an encyclopaedia article. If we are inserting colour quotes, then there are plenty more notable, people both pro- and anti-, that actually have some credentials. Rockpocket 23:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on the POV issue, because I've not looked at the quote. But I would say Newkirk is an expert on animal testing, arguably more so than a lot of the people we cite, who are experts on the area of science they're using animals to study, but not experts on animal testing itself. Newkirk, on the other hand, has spent her entire life working to combat it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked now. Granted, it's inappropriate.

In general, though, I wish the article had a few more quotes of that nature -- i.e. material examining the arguments. This article as written is basically unreadable -- it's all "And in the first quarter of 1972, 1.73 percent fewer of species X were used compared to the same period during the previous five years." Not only deadly dull, but really not telling us anything either. I may go in over the next few weeks and start to remove some of this detail, in case anyone notices large chunks disappearing. If I go too far, feel free to revert me. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the above wasn't a dig at people who've worked on this. I've added a lot of the details myself. It's been a problem of everyone adding bits here and there, and the cumulative effect being an unintended mass of detail. Then we worry about removing any of it, in case we inadvertently POV the article, so there it sits. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As you note, what Newkirk is, is an expert at combating animal testing, that is very different from being an expert on animal testing (which is different again from being an expert in promoting animal testing). I think its really important, SV, that we don't forget that this article is primarily about testing/experimentation and not only about the debate about it. That is certainly an important aspect, but irrespective of its philosophical/moral rights and wrongs, it is a subject that can be described completely neutrally by what it is and how it is used. Those people who do it are the people that can tell us what it is (technically speaking), how many animals are used, what animals are used and what they are used for. In doing that we are not advocating animal testing, we are simply describing it. Newkirk (for example) wouldn't know her embryonic stem cell from her induced pluripotent stem cell, yet these currently define, perhaps, the most medically pertinent use of animals in experiments. I welcome your attempts to improve the article, it certainly can be improved in a lot of areas, but urge you to bear in mind that everything need not be written entirely in terms of pro- and anti-. Animal experimentation is a scientific tool, a number of techniques, as much as it is a social issue. To that end, we should use scientific consensus as our benchmark for reliability and notability. A significant part of this article should describe how it is, not how it should or should not be. Rockpocket 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RP, in fairness, we can't leave the details to people who make money from animal testing. We have to tell all sides, and that includes Newkirk's. People who use animals aren't necessarily experts in animal testing as a subject, particularly not in the way a researcher from one of the anti-vivisection societies is likely to be. The fact is that we have strong views in its support (which includes highlighting certain facts and not others, presenting facts in a particular way, using a certain vocabulary), and we have strong views against (which involves the same presentation issues), and we have to steer a steady course between them, while retaining a readable narrative. We've not managed to do that, understandably because it's not easy, not to mention time-consuming. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Newkirk quote. It sat in the "Regulation" section next to the debate about IACUC reliability. The quote said "I don’t think dominion means exploitation. It may come with a responsibility to look after and protect, the way the Queen had dominion over Canada. That didn’t allow for her to put electrodes in its citizens’ heads and test floor polish on Canadians. It was a protectorate, and isn’t that what we are supposed to be? Protectors and not big bullies." I didn't find it particularly relevant to animal testing - particularly because it doesn't even mention animals directly.

Slimvirgin, animal rights groups are much much much more directly tied to income derived from opposing animal testing, than scientists, governments, and medical/veterinary groups are. The animal rights groups, as you know and repeat here often, start their arguments by saying you cannot assume good faith from anyone legally involved in the process. I receive grant funding to perform animal testing, and other grant income for human testing, and I try to steer my course so my research maximally benefits biomedical research. Sometimes that uses animals, other times not. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

AR, we've had an unwritten rule on WP for the last year or so that people shouldn't try to claim personal credentials unless they're willing to have them verified. So please either give us your name so we can check the credentials, or please stop arguing on the basis of personal knowledge.

The fact remains this article must reflect the various POVs on animal testing and not the POV of the group of researchers that uses animals and that benefits personally and professionally from their use. We wouldn't rely entirely on the nuclear weapons industry for our articles about nuclear weapons, or entirely on ALF sources for our article on the ALF, or entirely on the White House for articles about George Bush. It's just that simple principle that I'm emphasizing here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, there is no way, for very obvious reasons, I am giving my credentials to you. There are enormous potential repercussions, and I don't have 100% confidence you are trustworthy with my identity. If Rockpocket wants to "verify" me, he can post an anonymously redirected email address here, and I will email my CV to that email from my work address. It will show that I run an animal testing lab, that I have engaged in animal testing as my primary profession for almost two decades, that I sit on an IACUC, and that I have been employed at some of the most controversial sites conducting animal testing in the USA. However, I must ask that my place of work, as well as my identity, and all past places of work, not ever be posted to Wikipedia or any public forum as the result of my sending my CV for verification. As to the debate below, I am staying out of it, I come here to work on issues relating to encyclopedia entries, and not to debate animal testing with people who are inflexibly opposed to it. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is unnecessary, additions to articles depend only on the sources cited, your real-life identity is irrelevant. Although I edit under my real name, I know many other editors who guard their anonymity very carefully. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Real-life ID is directly relevant if people keep trying to use their personal credentials to control content. Animalresearcher, I don't want your ID; what I am requesting is that you stop trying to use personal knowledge -- then your ID won't matter. Though I should add if your privacy matters to you, you might want to stop editing while logged out. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have not edited while logged out for many months, and never did it intentionally to begin with. Slimvirgin's continued accusations to the contrary border on obsessive and slander. I have no issue with doing all my editing with my current WIKI ID. Secondly, there are often things that may be cited, but are obvious outright lies to people who actually work in animal testing. For example, Slimvirgin included a citation that claimed (without further reference) that chimpanzees in research facilities came in part from circuses, animal trainers, and zoos (animal testing in non-human primates page). The truth is that no new chimps have come into research labs in the USA since the breeding ban in 1996, and the VAST majority of the chimps in research labs in the USA were purpose bred, and anyone could find this out in five minutes on the internet (and it would be obvious to anyone familiar with the animal testing situation in the USA), However, that did not keep Slimvirgin from reverting that change multiple times, assuming that the New England anti-vivisection society was a "BETTER" reference than the multiple references I suppled. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources/POV

Animal experimentation is a technique like any other in the laboratory. Nobody would say that scientists benefit personally from gel electrophoresis or enzyme assays, and that their contributions to these articles is suspect due to an imagined POV. We are paid to provide useful knowledge, not on the basis of what techniques we employ. Your argument is based on a misunderstanding. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The animal-testing industry is worth an enormous amount of money, and that's not even to factor in research grants. The people who defend it are almost invariably people who are involved in it, and people who are earning money as a result of it, whether it's by receiving salaries, grants, or money from customers who buy equipment. Their POV and their vocabulary cannot be allowed to overwhelm this article. No POV can be allowed to overwhelm it. That is my only argument. The difference between the animal-testing and other POVs is that the former is seen by some people who have edited this page as the default position -- to the point where they don't even see it as a POV -- whereas the anti-testing POV always clearly stands out as such. The only solution to that is mindfulness on everyone's part.

But my main point, as I said above, is not the POV issue, but that the article is unreadable, because it's too heavy on unnecessary detail, and lacks a narrative. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long. One way to approach this would be to summarise the general outline of the regulatory process that is common to the countries we discuss, and move the details of the regulations to a sub-article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Tim's point is important to remember. That an expert neurologist decides that a legal, regulated experiment using an animal is best to answer a scientific question does not make him unreliable in describing that experiment. He is the expert neurologist, he should know the details of the experiment and the goal is the answer the biological question, not experiment on an animal for the sake of it. If that was the case then we could not use any scientific literature to describe any scientific technique. It would be the equivalent of suggesting that we should consider George Bush as much as expert as on somatic cell nuclear transfer as Rudy Jaenisch, because he has spent time opposing it. George Bush is notable for opposing it, but he is not an expert on it. Likewise, Newkirk is an expert at opposing animal testing but she is not an expert on it. That is not to say everyone who could be considered an expert supports it, consider Gill Langley for example. My argument is simply that its important to distinguish animal testing as a technique from animal testing as a cause/social issue. Both need to be covered here, but those that are experts in one are not necessarily an expert in the other, and vice versa. Rockpocket 18:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this isn't the place to debate these issues, but I'll just give one very simple example.

You're engaging in research into neuroplasticity. You design some experiments whereby certain things are done to animals, and you kill them afterwards and look at their brains to see whether the behavior caused any physical change. In the meantime — let's say unknown to you, the professor — the animals are being kicked, kept locked in tiny cages, forced to listen to blaring radios and shouting technicians, are terrified, traumatized, or perhaps just extremely bored. You can paint your own scenario.

The anti-testing argument is that the animals' environment has introduced so many variables of such an extreme nature that you can no longer trust the animal to act as a model for anything. (Rat Park is an example: give rats a horrible life and they take drugs; give them a nicer one, and they don't. So what useful thing can you possibly deduce from the drug use of rats kept in tiny cages, bored out of their minds?) So you kill the neuroplasticity animal, look at the brain, and the question remains, like a giant pink elephant in the room: how do you know that the behavior you forced the animal to engage in caused the changes in the brain that you found, and that the other factors didn't — or that some unknown combination of your experiment and the other factors wasn't responsible? It is largely for reasons such as this that critics argue animal testing is inherently unscientific.

The scientists who engage in and support animal testing often seem to have to suspend their own critical faculty to justify it. We end up with arguments about how experiment A led to the development of drug B, when in fact all we know is that experiment A was one of the things that preceded the development of drug B. The exact causal relationship is often entirely unknown, with no evidence whatsoever that drug B necessitated experiment A. (This faulty logic is noticeable in our lead, and should really be changed.)

Because this is the backdrop to most of the criticism, you can't say -- we have the science on the one hand, which should be our main focus and we should trust the scientists as sources for it, and the criticism on the other. The two are inextricably linked. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The other thing I've found pretty disturbing is that scientists who dismiss animal testing are immediately regarded as unreliable sources! You can be doing your animal research on Monday after 30 years in the industry, and Wikipedia will welcome you with open arms as a reliable source. But publish an anti-testing paper on Tuesday, and it's "Hey, this guy's a bit of jerk / an animal-rights supporter / nearing retirement / his paper wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal!" Anything to ensure that all-things-scientific = support for animal testing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your question "how do you know that the behavior you forced the animal to engage in caused the changes in the brain that you found, and that the other factors didn't — or that some unknown combination of your experiment and the other factors wasn't responsible?" - parallel experimental controls. In experiments you change one variable and control for the rest. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that's never done. You don't conduct an experiment (a) with the animal being kicked by technicians, and then repeat it (b) without the animal being kicked by technicians. And on and on throughout the long list of variables. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, anyone who didn't provide suitable controls would get their research rejected at the peer review process and thus we wouldn't use it as a source. Which kind of reinforces the point that those who are not familiar with scientific method often use those arguments. Its interesting that, among the anti lobby, those who are experts tell a somewhat different story. Gill Langley told The Guardian, "I would never claim that all animal experiments are without scientific value," though she still opposes it on principle. Blanket opposition to animal experimentation on the grounds of scientific value is simply not an informed argument, which is why uninformed people like Newkirk make it, but people like Langley do not. Likewise, most scientists would never claim that all animal experiments are with scientific value. There are lots of animal experiments that deserve criticism on that basis and plenty of scientists who do experiment on animals make those criticisms. That is what the peer review process is about. A person that accepts animal testing is acceptable in principle is no less scientifically critical of animal testing than one, like Langley, who does not. This is why is important we use informed scientists as sources for those sort of arguments and not just advocates.

Scientists that, in general, "dismiss" animal testing are no more or no less reliable as those that "promote" it. Both are forms of advocacy and should be treated as such. But its inherently flawed logic to assume that scientist describing an experiment using an animal is "promoting" animal testing. They are not. Rockpocket 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That is very much the argument the expert antis use, RP. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin, parallel controls are always done. No experiment is ever done without controls, it just wouldn't be meaningful. You compare the animals in the experimental group to the control group, and both groups are housed together under the same conditions. Any biological effects from how the animals are housed or fed will apply equally to the control and experimental groups, and are therefore accounted for in the experiment. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, have you read serious material written in criticism of animal testing? The way the animals are treated is not something you could have a control group for. As in -- this is the group not being kicked and therefore less stressed? It doesn't even make any sense. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Tim, I've never met any scientist that would use that argument, irrespective of philosophical opinion on animal experimentation. But if you can find one published in a reliable source then lets use them as a source of scientific criticism, rather than non-experts like Newkirk. Rockpocket 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer this because it's one the key arguments. Pietro Croce, for example (former vivisector for many years in Italy, U.S. and Spain), talks about how Nazi experiments on Jews were useless scientifically (leaving the morality aside) because people torn from their families, transported in cattle trucks, kept starving in close confinement and in terror, aren't going to respond in the way people not so treated would respond. He raises the comparison to highlight the nonsense of experimenting on animals kept in environments that terrify them, or expose them to extreme boredom or other stress. As he says, "One does not have to be an expert to realize that a sick organism is not the same as a healthy one. Even the simplest illness changes many (if not all) biochemical parameters, in ways that can be quantified and even in ways beyond our ability to quantify." Any pointers such experiments might offer are "too vague to be valid in scientific terms ..." (Vivisection or Science, 1999, pp. 98-104). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I realise you might not have much experience of scientific research, so take a simple example. You inject bacteria into a set of ten mice. Then you inject either an antibiotic into five of this set of mice, or just water into the other five. The mice are all kept together in the same cage. You compare the course of the disease in the mice without antibiotics (untreated controls), with the course of the disease in the mice that received the drug (experimental group). Any difference between the controls and the experimental group is due to the effect of the drug. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But if you increase the complexity even slightly, you'll see that the same model won't hold. How would you deal with the neuroplasticity example I gave above, where individual primates are being handled quite differently -- some roughly, some not, with different individuals reacted differently to the various stressors? How could a researcher, trying to be rigorously scientific, handle the enormous number of variables? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, some experiments are easy to control, others are more difficult. However, since most toxicology, drug development and disease research are just as simple as I described, you can see that the large majority of animal experimentation is very rigorous and the results reliable. I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that some research will be skewed by studying captive animals (behavioral research being an obvious example), but to go from a minority of complex cases to casting a blanket judgement on the majority of simple experiments is unsound. I'm sure some people do make such erroneous judgments, and their point of view should be included, but this is not an informed opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But this gets us right back to the point I raised above. Anyone who disagrees is regarded as "not informed." Professor Croce is a professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Milan, a member of the American College of Pathologists, was in charge of the research labs at the L. Sacco Hospital in Milan for 30 years, and has worked in research labs in various hospitals in the U.S. and Spain. But because he disagrees, he is suddenly not informed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Even highly intelligent people sometimes say things that are obviously untrue. As the simple example I explained above shows, much animal testing in vertebrates is perfectly rigorous, which is before you even consider testing in invertebrates - animals that will suffer no stress in captivity. However, if Professor Croce's opinion is notable, it should be included, but even a simple appreciation of the facts disproves his idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Grrrrr. I had just composed an elegant but devastatingly convincing reply that would have completely turned SV into a flag-waving, meat-eating, bunny-slicing vivisector. Sadly, it edit conflicted with Tim's archiving. Now it will never be read and she will remain a thorn in the research establishment's side for a while longer... ;) Rockpocket 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We use that archive approach to cut off interesting but off-topic discussions quite a lot on the Evolution talk page! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro to section on regulation

We need to introduce the section, so that this is not just a list of factoids. Is your objection on the sourcing, the positioning or the content? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article showcasing the animal-testing industry

The POVing of this page really does have to stop. Tim's latest addition is something you might find on the website of the Research Defence Society:

Animal testing is regulated by law. Generally, regulations set standards on who can perform experiments, and how these experiments are carried out. Although the details of regulations differ between countries, most laws follow the same principles. These internationally-accepted guidelines are called the 3Rs and aim to encourage - replacement of animal experiments where possible, refinement of experiments to minimize suffering, pain or distress, and reductions in the numbers of animals used in experiments.

Tim, you need to make in-text attributions, and please don't write as though what you're saying is widely accepted, when in fact it is widely disputed. Posting pro-POV, then adding anti-POV, has made this article completely unreadable. What is needed is a group of editors who are each willing to write entirely neutrally, as though they're Martians who've landed, with access to a huge library about animal testing, but with no vested interests one way or the other, and who will write in skeptical, disinterested tones.

Who here is willing to try to do that? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an accurate and neutral description of the 3Rs, which are the internationally-recognised principles behind the regulations. Is your concern that most national laws do not "aim to encourage" the application of the 3Rs? How about:

Animal testing is regulated by law. Generally, regulations set standards on who can perform experiments, and how these experiments are carried out. Although the details of regulations differ between countries, most national regulations follow the same general principles, which are called the 3Rs. These guidelines aim to encourage - replacement of animal experiments where possible, refinement of experiments to minimize suffering, pain or distress, and reductions in the numbers of animals used in experiments.

Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't neutral. It reads like a piece of advertising, and doesn't actually say anything. Consider:

"SlimVirgin sets standards for her editing behavior. Although those standards may vary from day to day, in general her aim is to encourage excellent editing, discourage incivility, and minimize the pain and distress experienced by editors who encounter her."

So what does that tell you exactly? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the first two sentences are unarguable and general. I have added specific citations to support the second two sentences. You can't have a section on the regulation of animal experimentation without explaining the 3Rs, that would be a major omission, and since these are the general principles that introduce the detailed regulations we list later, they should go first. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Animal testing is regulated by law. Generally, regulations set standards on who can perform experiments, and how these experiments are carried out. Although the details of regulations differ between countries, most national regulations require the application of the same general principles, which are called the 3Rs. The 3Rs aim to encourage - replacement of animal experiments where possible, refinement of experiments to minimize suffering, pain or distress, and reductions in the numbers of animals used in experiments.

The problem is that it doesn't say anything of substance and sounds as though it was written by the industry. How would you feel if I were to introduce the section with (all of which I could find good sources for):

Animal testing is supposedly regulated by law, but in fact the legislation allows as many loopholes as it closes, there are never enough inspectors, their supposedly random visits are often announced in advance, and as a result researchers are legally permitted to poison, drown, burn, and otherwise inflict pain on animals at will, so long as they fill in the right forms.

The page is already very long. We can't keep adding either pro- or anti-waffle. We need to add points of real substance and attribute them in the text. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right that it could be condensed a little without losing much content - but explaining the 3Rs is vital to understanding what the regulations are trying to achieve. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, animal testing regulations set standards on who can perform experiments, and how these experiments are carried out. Most national regulations require the application of the same general principles, which are called the 3Rs. The 3Rs encourage - replacement of animal experiments where possible, refinement of experiments to minimize suffering, pain or distress, and reductions in the numbers of animals used in experiments. Although such principles have been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups, they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research, and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare.

Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No further comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten and better sources added. Any objections to this new version being added back to the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Added to section on alternatives. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph portion on US regulation

Slimvirgin deleted the following text. "The Health Research Extension Act 1985, which is enforced by the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), requires each scientist or institution that receives federal funds for vertebrate research to have an IACUC. The IACUC is required to ensure research adheres to the standards of the book, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Legally, every vertebrate animal used at an institution that receives federal funds, has its animal welfare regulated to standards that meet or exceed those in the Animal Welfare Act."

I added these sentences because the current text misleads the reader into thinking that purpose-bred birds, rats, and mice, and non-mammal vertebrates, are not covered by law in the USA. However, at any institution receiving federal funds (which is nearly all of them), these species are covered, and are covered to the same set of rules and regulations that govern other mammals specifically mentioned in the Animal Welfare Act. FWIW it would be fine (by me) to have a sentence claiming that animal rights groups have challenged the competence of IACUCs, since that is additionally covered in the sub-page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing

What has happened with this page is that, in truth, no one editing it is an expert in either direction. So what we have all done is cherry-pick our sources, and then slap them onto the page without paying any attention to overall POV, readability, whether there is a narrative that a reader could follow. As a result, we have a very poor and uninformative Wikipedia article.

I just removed a section that was typical. Someone has found some quotes that suited his POV, so in they went, one after another, in a way that made no sense, and which was clearly POV. It would be like me adding quotes from different animal protection groups, saying "Animal testing is very bad," followed by "No, it's very, VERY bad," followed by "We don't like it either!!"

It's in no-one interests to edit like this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, some of us on this page have been involved in writing featured articles. Can we from now on pretend, with every edit we make, that we're getting the article ready for FAC -- even if we're not? I think if we all start to look at it that way, the problems will come bouncing off the page, and we'll be able to set POV aside and agree about the need to raise the quality. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, in all honesty, it is very difficult to write about this aspect of animal experimentally both neutrally and attractively. Inevitably the people doing the writing have such fundamentally differing POVs that meeting in the middle tends to come second to he said/she said point and counterpoint. I'm not saying it can't be done, but just that it is very difficult. Rockpocket 23:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's very difficult, and I don't think this article will ever meet FA standards as a result. But we can do better than this. Constructing entire sections with one block quote after another, all expressing the same POV, and none of the quotes actually saying anything, is unacceptable, as is writing as though the pro-testing position is the default. It should be possible for each of us to step back just a little and adopt a more disinterested style of writing.

One thing we could try -- as soon as any of the (broadly speaking) pro-testing editors on this page find themselves writing something that the pro-testing industry would approve of, please stop and try to change the tone, some of the content, and some of the sources. The editors who are broadly anti-testing should try to do the same. I know this is very hard, and none of us will succeed entirely, but I'm suggesting we give it a shot. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why the article cannot be written with the dominant viewpoint of people who perform animal testing (without blocking other POVs). If you take this analogy to another topic, like, say, baseball, can you imagine having an encyclopedia entry on baseball equally devoted to people who are players and fans on one side, and those who think steroids are corrupting America's youth on the other? The article MUST include a whole lot of very straightforward info on types of experiments, animal numbers, trends over time, legal regulation, scientific findings, etc, and those are by and large nearly objective endeavors. The controversy pertains to a number of key points - is it good science? Should animals have rights? If science does gain, are the gains in science worth the pain and suffering of the animals (no one I know would deny there is pain and suffering in lab animals - but whether that pain/suffering justifies the scientific gains is very debatable). And I am sorry to say I view a lot of the anti-testing matter, such as the debate over IACUC consistency, to be not worth the text used to list it on the pages. That particular Plous article "controversy" has never had an impact on the conduct of, or attitudes towards, testing from the veterinary and government fields. I view it as nothing more than a public relations point that is repeated by animal rights groups often in the hopes that someone will believe it (1991, Ann Rev Neurosci, David Hubel). However, instead of removing it, the only POV accepted change is adding the rebuttal published in science a few issues later. After all, it is listed on at least a half dozen animal rights websites, so it must be highly relevant to animal testing (sarcasm). --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The article cannot be written with the dominant viewpoint that of the testers. We do not write about anything controversial from the viewpoint of the people at the center of the controversy, though of course their viewpoint must be included, as must all other significant viewpoints. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

History section is one sided

The current History section does not mention any historical objections to animal testing, whereas the linked main article does. So clearly there is a problem. Crum375 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The section doesn't mention any historical arguments for animal testing either. What it does is summarize how animal testing has been used historically (whether that is a good or necessary thing, whether it is ultimately useful or misleading, whether it is cruel or immoral, is not mentioned either way). It comes down to the same question: are we talking about the history of animal testing as a scientific technique (which is what I originally wrote last year and what that section summarizes) or are we talking about the history of the debate over animal testing? Describing historical experiments neutrally is not the same as advocating them. Rockpocket 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think an anti-AT person would probably say that the current History section sounds like a pro-testing advertisement. But in any case, whatever the target — strict description of what AT is, vs. including pro and con arguments — my point was that the linked history section seems to have the wider coverage, while I think they should both have matching scopes. Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll also weigh in slightly on the scope issue. It seems to me that if the scope is strictly what AT is, then we should only mention the techniques used and the types of tests. Once we start mentioning results, or achievements, that gets into the ethical debate of cost vs. benefit. Crum375 (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But therein lies the crux, an experiment with animals is not an end in itself, the results is the whole point of the experiment. It would be utterly uninformative to remove the why from the what:

In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur gave anthrax to sheep. In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov famously used dogs.... On November 3, 1957 a Russian dog, Laika, was experimented on. In the 1970s, armadillos were used. In 1996 Dolly the sheep was born.

The very nature of science is that successful experiments are reported and unsuccessful ones are not. Thus the notable experiments are the successful ones. There simply are not landmark unsuccessful experiments with animals, because they would not be a landmark if they are unsuccessful. That could mislead readers into thinking that every use of an animal historically was for some important experiment, but that is the very nature of reporting bias. Consider DNA Sequencing#Early methods. We only discuss the reported successful early attempts at sequencing, we do not mention all the failed attempt as sequencing (even though there were many). No-one would ever suggest that, as a consequence, the article reads like a pro-sequencing advertisement. Why is animal testing different? Its important to distinguish the neutral and historical reporting of facts about the practicalities and history of animal testing (sourced reliably) from value judgments, both pro- and anti-, on their value. I think there is a need for both, though whether there is space for both in a single article is open for debate. Rockpocket 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense that usually only the successful experiments become notable. But clearly this article is about an emotionally charged issue, because some people consider AT as a cruel and immoral act, while others see it as a necessary step to use one species to promote the health and welfare of another. So we need to start out by explaining what AT is, the various types of tests, and how they are performed, both today and in the past. Then examples can be given about famous experiments. But there has to be a balance between the pro and anti AT views, so once successful results or accomplishments are mentioned, the downside in terms of the animals killed and/or hurt in the process has to be also mentioned. I can see an analogy here — say you talk about a war, you believe that fighting it was justified and the resulting victory was vindication. But you also mention the casualties in terms of soldiers and civilians wounded and killed, as part of the price. You don't just talk about cities and territories taken, and governments capitulating. So I think the same needs to be done here: mention the benefits alongside the costs. To some the costs are expendable cannon fodder, to others they are not. Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I thought it was kind of implicit that all the experiments mentioned didn't work out too well for the animals ;). I'm not sure its going to be possible to get any reliable perspective on historical "casualties" beyond that those we do have info about were inevitably killed. Classical scientists weren't too bothered about reporting that aspect of their work. However, if there is some way of making that clearer then I'm all for that.

Regarding your analogy, I generally agree. However there is a problem. The human cost of war can be reliably documented, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by humans. They animals cost of animal experimentation can only be quantitatively documented. How much Pavlov's dogs suffered can never be anything other than a matter of opinion. When we document historical experiments the facts are without doubt: leprosy multi-drug antibiotic treatments were developed first in armadillos. The benefit is self explanatory. The quantitative cost? Well, we might be able to source how many armadillos were used in the experiments (though I doubt it). But then what? Anything qualitative is pure speculation and opinion, and if we are going to offer the opinion from some AR advocate that X suggests "the poor armadillos suffered terribly" we could also add the opinion from some AT advocate that Y suggests "they didn't feel pain". Those sorts of arguments offer very little, in terms of reliable information, in comparison to describing the human cost of war. Rockpocket 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I generally agree. So the issue is to try to describe the outcome of the test alongside the cost in terms of animals killed or hurt. Since we can't describe the animals' suffering from first hand accounts, we need to describe the actual procedures performed, to allow the reader to infer that information, unless we have very neutral (or generally pro AT) sources. As to the number of animals used per experiment, if we don't have specific numbers, we can fall back on the global ones, e.g. X number of vertebrates killed per year in the UK. The bottom line is to always present the result or benefit alongside the cost in terms of animals used, even if approximate. Crum375 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Tim, why did you remove that animals other than mice are used from the genetic modification section? You removed: "Smaller numbers of other animals are also used, including rats, sheep, and pigs." [9] Is it wrong? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are large, well-funded, efforts to make genetically modified rattus and macaca fascicularis models in multiple places. Many who work in genetic modification think this is an important research direction because of limitations in generalizing from rodents to primates. I could probably dig up some citations. The numbers, however, are VERY small compared to the mouse (I'd guess over 1000-fold difference).--Animalresearcher (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is that an answer to the question? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I saw no reason to remove such a section, because based on what I've seen, there is more than that even. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it since it seemed redundant, if you say mice are the main organism, then it must logically follow that smaller numbers of other organisms are used. The list didn't seen to add much and was backed by a citation to a BBC news article on glow-in-the-dark pigs. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Toxicology section

I've created a toxicology section, as I just noticed the one we had got removed at some point. I've used a single Nature article as the main source for now, and they had nothing good to say about it. If anyone can find a source that is less negative, that would be good, though both sides should preferably be woven together, rather than having pro and anti jockeying for position. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a better review on embryology testing, it's free full-text so anybody can access this. I'll have a look at the ones I can't access at home from work tomorrow. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nature writes that, as of 2005, the LD50 test nevertheless accounted for one-third of all animal tests worldwide.

This is problematic. Nature is using the term "animal test" to specifically mean "testing a compound on an animal", rather than as a blanket term for animal experimentation (as we currently do). There is simply no way that LD50 accounts for 1/3 of all animals used in research, which is what we imply by our use of the term. A brief look at the numbers show that does not add up. This highlights a wider concern. Often when the AR lobby quote a scientist regarding criticizing "animal testing" the scientists are referring to the "testing of compounds on animals", rather than animal experimentation in general. As you can see from the Nature article, the scientific establishment is growing more critical of the animal testing paradigms. It might simply be a misunderstanding, but it is a problem that leads to misinterpretation of what scientists actually mean (I strongly suspect that is the basis of Croce's quotes you provided earlier, SV. The full reference is Croce, Pietro, Vivisection or Science? An Investigation into Testing Drugs and Safeguarding Health. London: Zed Books, 1999, so his criticisms appear to be against the testing of drugs in animals, rather than a critique on all animal experimentation. This explains why an apparently well respected scientist would appear to make such uninformed comments.) For this reason I have always been a proponent of having an article on animal testing, describing such things as cosmetic testing, toxicity testing, LD50 etc specifically, and another article on animal experimentation covering those only briefly, plus all other aspects. This has always been vetoed in the past. If we are going to stick with a single article for both its really important that we recognize that the science community do not use the terms interchangeably as we do. Rockpocket 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So we need to change that to toxicology testing rather than "animal tests," is that right? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Croce and he is talking about animal experimentation/testing in general. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It must also be applying this term specifically to vertebrates, I'll change this to make it clear and have a look at the text tomorrow. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep changing animals to vertebrates. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)}

This addition is illustrative of the problems. Someone wanted to add something less negative to the toxicology section, which is fine. But this is not a good choice:

"However, as a recent medical review stated "There is no question that animal studies can provide valuable information pertaining to human and animal vulnerability to environmental toxicants at different stages of development", but the assessment of the results of these tests must be balanced by the fact that a negative result in animals does not guarantee safety in humans."

Which medical review? What does it actually say? This gives us no information at all, except that some testing is sometimes valuable in some undetermined way, according to some unnamed review. We need specifics, and we need in-text attribution for any opinion so readers can judge whether they want to believe it without having to go to a library. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, this is a free full-text reference, just click on the blue link in the citation. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't fair to ask other people to tidy all your edits. You must say who conducted the review. Also, you're splitting up what source A and source B said in a way that's amounting to OR.

What is the purpose of this sentence (which you appeared by the way you positioned it to attribute Nature): "For example, about half of the chemicals tested on rodents cause cancer, but only 10% of these positive results are from chemicals that can cause cancer in humans. This over-sensitivity is probably due partly to the rapidly-growing animals being more susceptible to cancer, and partly to the high doses used in these tests. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was Nature, it gives the false positve/true positive rate on p145 of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Xeno

How about we trash the xenotransplantation section? I really don't see why we should highlight a single field like this. Its poorly sourced and, is of relatively minor significance in terms of numbers. If we are going to focus on a type of experiment, why not transgenesis? At the very least it should be merged into the applied research section. Rockpocket 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to that subsection and found a better source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regulations

I've moved the regulations sections to Animal testing regulations, so the sections can be expanded if necessary. I restored some of the controversy section, because someone had removed almost all of it, and I created two new sub-sections under "Controversy" -- "Alleged abuse" and "Threats to researchers." We should probably only include the most notable incidents, or we'll quickly have a length problem. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove the controversy section. It was noted that nearly every subsection in controversy had its own page. I moved the more full paragraphs to the species-specific pages, and pointers to them included in the animal testing page. This was done over time and with some discussion on the Talk page, as you can plainly see. In fact, it was even argued that when you created the species specific pages, the sections describing details relating to the species were removed from the testing page, whereas the controversy sections were always duplicated (ie: arguably POV editing - why is species specific controversy worth duplicating, but species specific testing info not worth duplicating). I will revert this edit unless I hear a good reason otherwise (here), the controversy section redundantly adds a lot of text to a page already two times longer than recommended. As it is, we still need to find ways to reduce the page length and clean up the page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

AR, you really have to stop removing material that is critical of AT. This section is written in summary style. Summary style does not require one sentence per topic. I would also appreciate it very much if you would stop arguing on talk pages on the basis of your own opinion, and stick more closely to what sources are saying. If you really are in charge of a primate lab (or whatever it was you said about yourself), you arguably stand in a conflict of interest, and so strong sourcing is even more important. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was abundantly clear. When you split off the "animal testing on non-human primates" page, you duplicated each controversy section en todo, although your stated effort was to reduce the page size of the "Animal testing" page to make it more manageable. In addition, almost all of the controversy subsections already had their own WIKI pages. I took the ones that were not already listed on the non-human primate page, and duplicated them with the full length listing that had been on the animal testing page. Then, I removed most of the controversy section, but left a pointer to the controversy section on the non-human primate page, and every pointer to every subsection that had its own page, and a sentence or two summary for each. To be clear, no information was removed from Wikipedia, and nothing was moved more than one click from the animal testing page.

In contrast, when you moved the other non-human primate sections to the "Animal testing on non-human primates" page, you briefly summarized them on the animal testing page, and listed them en todo on the non-human primate page. Obviously you were editing with a double standard towards the controversy sections, and the other animal testing sections, with respect to non-human primates. And that completely defines POV editing when neutral POV material such as animal numbers and types of experiments is reduced and moved to another page, but highly POV material like the controversy section was duplicated en todo.

To replicate that, I similarly moved the controversy sections to the "animal testing on non-human primates" page. I did this after several days of discussion and with the full consent of rockpocket (see the discussions if you don't believe me). I honestly do not think there is a valid argument that my correction of your editing was POV given the history of events, nor was I acting hastily or without broad consensus. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Tim, would you mind adding your own material instead of editing mine? Then once it's all there we can rewrite for flow. The current chopping things around is leading to poor flow and, I think, some OR too. Also, the normal thing with reporters is simply to name the publication, unless the reporter is well-known, or it's a controversial opinion piece. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Which parts of the article are yours? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not parts of the article. What I'm asking is if I write something and you want to add to it, I'd appreciate it if you would simply add to it, and not change my writing and interweave it with your own. It's leading to disjointed writing and looks slightly OR-ish. Once we have both added material and the section is fairly stable, then we can copy edit for flow. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it.". However, if you want to work on this text privately for a while, shall I move it to User:SlimVirgin/Toxicology for you? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki, so I can only request that you add material, rather than changing other people's, and I can also only request that material that's added be informative, and not simply bland advertising material trotted out by either side.

The point of the page is to educate people who don't know anything about the subject. That means it has to be readable — because we want them to read it. It also means it has to be educative — so they know more after reading it than before.

That won't happen if the article consists of blockquote after blockquote of statements from groups saying "we love it," or "we hate it." It also won't happen if the writing is too technical or consists of long lists of "In January, 1,230,873 and a half" mice were used, but in February the figure increased by 0.231%." It won't happen if the writing is poor and disjointed, with no flow and no narrative.

I know it's hard to write an article like this well, and I'm not saying I'm in a position to do it myself (or I'd have done it by now). But we can try, which means we have to change our approach, because the current approach hasn't worked.

One thing we are missing is a section on the sourcing of animals. I'm going to try to write something when I have time, but I'll do it summary style here and open up another subpage to keep the length down. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you'll allow me to edit what you regard as your text, thank you. However, working on any article in a Wiki will be difficult for you if you object to people changing what you have added. That just isn't how it works, as I'm sure you are aware. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have stayed away from this article for a long time, largely because it seemed to me that you had followed me to it (this and others) after our last disagreement. Perhaps you didn't and that was cooincidence. Regardless, it seems to me that it has deteriorated, and it was never very good to begin with (something I'm responsible for as much as anyone else). So all I am seeking here is improvement and a commitment to a high standard of writing and source use. I can only hope that everyone can work on this harmoniously. These tetchy posts don't help toward that end and are incredibly time-consuming. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we both edit widely in this encyclopaedia, we are bound to overlap on some subjects, and this is one where I can make a useful contribution. However, I'm sure you can understand why having your work reverted and being told to "add your material without changing other people's" might get you a little tetchy. I'm sorry if I let any irritation show. I too hope to use high-quality sources and produce good prose. However, I won't be able to do anything constructive if you object to people editing what you have written - that's just going to lead to a waste of everybody's time and effort.

We can work constructively on this. Your writing is approachable and explains the anti position very clearly, but is based on the popular literature, so misses some of the technicalities and modern techniques involved. I write well on the science, but am sometimes blind to my POV and may assume too much background from a general reader. If we both add to this, and both edit each other's text, we should be able to combine the best of both worlds. However this requires collaboration, not confrontation, and in particular more rewriting and fewer simple reverts. Are you willing to collaborate on improving this article? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, I'd like to collaborate on it with you. But first I'd like to make sure we're on the same page when it comes to sources, and deciding who our audience is. My apologies for the length of this. Long talk-page comments are very annoying, but I just feel I have to spell this out.

Sources

You wrote above something about my using "popular" sources, even though the sources I used were quite varied (from Nature to USDA, to newspapers, to the HSUS). So what I assume you mean is that I'm using secondary sources, and not primary ones. (But if you meant something else, please say.)

We have to rely on secondary sources in an article like this because it's so contentious. There is absolutely nothing about animal testing that is not seriously disputed by reliable sources. In fact, this is probably one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia. The only reason there's not more fighting on it is you have to do quite a bit of detailed reading to keep up, and most people don't want to do that.

I could very easily go to a university library now and come back with enough primary-source material to fill this page with horror upon horror. Obviously, that would be OR and unacceptable.

Therefore, I think it makes sense to discuss what kinds of sources we're aiming to focus on. Almost all sources will be regarded as propagandists by the other "side." And it's worth noting that there are more than two sides here -- there's (1) pro-testing (and different degrees of support for it); (2) anti-testing based on the argument that it's unscientific, but with little concern for the animals; (3) anti-testing because of animal welfare, which means it's okay to use them but you have to treat them better; and (4) anti-testing because it's regarded as inherently and always immoral. And a thousand variations on those themes.

Given that all sides may be seen as propagandists by someone, the way I approach this is I'm willing to use any reliable source who has something informative to say; and I try not to use any source, no matter how authoritative, if all they're going to do is waffle.

Audience

Wondering who the informative sources are leads into asking who our audience is. Who do we want to inform? Answering that will determine what kind of information we offer them.

This page is going to be read largely by people who know little or nothing about animal testing. They may be reading for private interest, or may be writing an essay on it -- for college, school homework or whatever. This page is unlikely to be used by anyone engaged in serious research, and if it is, it will be only for the purpose of finding other sources.

None of these groups wants to see very detailed information here. No one cares if the UK used 1,346,908 mice in 2003, but slightly increased that in 2004. The generalist doesn't want that level of detail. The specialist won't trust our figures and will look them up for himself. So by writing in that very detailed way, we make the page hard to read, and we alienate ourselves from our natural readership.

What does the audience want to know?

They want to know what animal testing consists of, who does it, why they do it, where they do it, and what they do it with. We have to try to find the most interesting ways of expressing this -- not necessarily the stuff industry sources produce for the general public, which would put you to sleep in a minute because it often boils down to "$X million spent last year fighting breast cancer to save your Auntie Jane!" This is the stuff I very much want to avoid.

I would like us to collaborate on finding way to make the issues come alive for the reader, by identifying the key points to cover, and then using the most informative and least defensive sources on all sides to shed light on those points. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm highly encouraged by that. I meant by "popular" sources - articles in the popular press and non-academic sources. (Nothing about primary/secondary, which is quite an uninformative way of approaching sources anyway) There is a great deal published information on what is done, how it is done and what results have been achieved in the academic literature, this is factually highly-reliable but has its own POV. We need to use this to source much of the factual material on the science, since this is most authoritative on that aspect. These publications are however no more or less reliable on morality/ethics than any other.

As an example, if we want to discuss anesthesia in toxicology testing. An academic source would be preferable to support an statement that "anesthesia changes how the body detoxifies chemicals." eg PMID 2760837, but would be no better than anything else on if experiments without anesthesia are morally justifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the primary/secondary distinction very useful. It's a useful tool for checking how likely we are to be doing OR and inadvertently POV pushing -- and by that I mean putting sources together in a way that's painting our own picture, rather than reproducing the picture others are painting for us. It's the latter we need to be doing. We're here as glorified stenographers, and not as researchers or journalists.

Yes, I agree if we want to discuss an issue that is purely a matter of science, then it's best to use academic sources. But there are very few, if any, such issues that will arise on this page, in part because we don't want to get technical and detailed, and in part because just about everything is disputed -- either the facts themselves, or the way the facts are used. So I think we need to be constantly checking with secondary sources that our use of primary sources is legitimate, if we use them at all. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to cite reviews where I can, this acts as a "crap filter" and ensures you get a balanced view of a field. Those are tertiary sources right? Data = primary, Journal articles interpreting data = secondary, reviews interpreting articles = tertiary. Everybody seems to have their own definitions! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The definitions do shift, because it's a question of proximity to the event. The closer a writer is to the event, the more of a primary source that person is about that event (I'm calling writers "sources" here -- some Wikipedians insist that only documents are sources, but that needn't bother us here). So the researchers who perform an experiment are primary sources regarding that experiment (or their papers are primary sources, depending on which way you want to look at it). Secondary sources are people, articles, books discussing those experiments.

Tertiary sources are encyclopedias and similar that give a broad overview of all the other material. They are good to use to judge notability and relevance -- if something is so mainstream as to hit the Encyclopaedia Britannica, there's no excuse to ignore it. But they're not much use for anything else, because almost everything they publish needs to be checked independently of them -- unless you're using them only to show that something is very established. For example, I used the EB as a source for my definition of "vivisection," because I didn't want anyone arguing that it was source-dependent and that others sources would disagree. So I chose an authoritative tertiary source to nail it down, and made sure I found an informed secondary source who agreed, so the tertiary source wasn't standing alone. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact-value

If I may interject one just point. I think there may be something here that is a bone of contention between those with different POVs, and it may be an opportunity for us to resolve it. I think the problem us thus: in Wikipedia when we are discussing topics related to science and biomedicine, the primary and secondary sources (as moderated, reviewed and accepted by the scientific consensus) are encouraged as reliable sources. Scientists are experts at science, and thus we are happy to source their publications as references for our information. Conflicting minority scientific (and occasionally pseudo- or non-scientific) views are reported as such per WP:UNDUE. Since the scientific necessity for regulated animal testing is the overwhelming scientific consensus opinion, its tempting to argue that that the same should happen on this subject. Its clear to that this would not be neutral when discussing the issue of animal testing. However, neither can we simply treat the scientific consensus as entirely unreliable because a minority says so. My request, then, is that we meet somewhere in the middle. We should not be giving equal weight to activists and expert scientists when discussing the technicalities and practicalities of science. We should not be countering a published descriptions of a scientific techniques or findings with someone with no qualifications other than that they love animals for the sake of balance (I'm thinking this is mostly relevent to the "types of test" section). But by the same token, neither should we confuse technical expertise with expertise on the issues. Ingrid Newkirk is as much of an expert on the issues associated with animal experimentation as any scientist publishing in Nature (as SV is fond of pointing out).

I appreciate that is is not always easy to distinguish the practicalities from the issues (sometimes the practicalities are the issues!), and there will always be areas of conflict, but if we can at least come to some sort of understanding about this on principle, then I feel that much of the conflict between the POV could be resolved. Rockpocket 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, sections such as "Types of tests" and "Alternatives to animal testing" are purely scientific questions. What is done and what can be done is a factual matter on which there is data. This is the area science covers. "Controversy" deals with the actions of the groups opposed to testing (which should give more weight to mainstream organisations such as RSPCA), and "The arguments in brief" addresses moral issues and is where the facts are put into context and discussed from a philosophical viewpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The RSPCA is not an anti-testing organization per se; in fact, I don't even know what their position on testing is nowadays, because it changes depending on who's in control. The specialists are e.g. the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.

I think the difficulty I'm having is in seeing an example of an issue that would be purely a scientific one -- because either the issue itself will not be a matter of science alone, or the context in which it is used won't be, or the language in which it is expressed won't be. Rockpocket, can you give an example of the kind of issue you had in mind -- a real one from the page (this or a previous version of it)? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments were more aimed at finding common ground to move forward, rather than a criticism of things are they are. I don't think there is a huge problem in the article as is, it was more of a general comment about whether primary/secondary scientific references are appropriate as sources for facts, rather than as POV. For example, the entire "Types of tests" section currently cites scientific studies almost exclusively because its purpose is to document what scientists do and why they do it. I think its perfectly acceptable that these are used and not discounted as biased, or needing to be "balanced" by a AR version of why scientists kill animals. While I don't think that is what you are suggesting, SV, that might be inferred from the idea that scientist publications need to be treated as a pro-POV opinion and balanced by anti-POV opinion. All the other sections absolutely require anti-perspective (even the 3RR section, since that is widely criticizes as no more than lip-service). Rockpocket 03:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RP, I think I would indeed argue that, in this context, scientific publications needs to be treated as pro-POV. That's because almost any way they could be used is going to throw up a bias. For example, our lead states "Many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved research on vertebrates, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys)." We don't cite the original papers, but supposing we had for the sake of this argument. That sentence, while true, is POV, fallacious (post hoc ergo propter hoc), and misses the entire point of the opponents' argument, which is that the animal experiments may have been either unnecessary or slowed the work down. Yet when I tried to point that out at the time this was written, I was buried under a sea of "but they're just facts." My argument was then, and is now, that there are no such thing as "just facts" when it comes to this subject. As I wrote earlier, I could go to a university library now and come back with a ton of horrible "just facts" to insert into this article, and POV it entirely against animal research by using only the scientists' own words. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are not as close to agreeing as I thought. The sentence you cite is, as you say, "true". Its a rock solid, undeniable, verifiable fact. While the original papers would not be much use as a source for winning the Nobel prize, it would be entirely acceptable as a source for the development of penicillin using mice. Yet despite acknowledging its accuracy, you then state its POV? Why, because it "misses the entire point of the opponents' argument". Don't you think the opponents arguments should fit the facts, rather than adjust the facts to suit an argument? Stating that animal testing resulted in X, Y and Z (a fact) is simply not the same as stating X, Y and Z could not have happened without animal testing (an argument). If your point is that the fact is true, but it is being used in a misleading way, then perhaps you have a point. Its not a valid argument for the use of animals in research (as you note, using it as justification is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc) but where do we say it is an argument for necessity? I don't see that argument being made in the article. I see a statement indicating the ubiquity of animal tests, their role in the history of biomedicine and the respect they are given by the scientific community, all important points to summarize. If you wish to state the opinion they "may have been either unnecessary or slowed the work down" (an argument), we could do that no problem. But then we should state the opposing argument: that it was necessary and it sped the work up. That - not the statement of fact you cite - is the pro-testing POV. Rockpocket 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm arguing is that the fact-value distinction is being ignored when people put certain facts forward in support of animal testing.

That mice were used to develop penicillin is a fact. But why is it being mentioned? Animals were used to develop almost everything, including all the good and all the bad and all the useless. The penicillin example is being singled out in order to say: "We all need penicillin, and animal testing was used to get it. Therefore, animal testing provided it for us [this is the fallacious step]. Support animal testing! [this is the value]"

In other words, dead mice = live human beings = hurrah! But that is nowhere shown in this example, because maybe the mice part was unnecessary.

Where is the evidence that the use of animals was necessary or sped the work up? And if there is evidence in this particular case, is there sufficient evidence in all the other cases that are frequently cited by the industry? How could there be evidence? No one has run a controlled study whereby two groups unknown to each other were racing to find penicillin -- one group using animals, the other not.

My point is that just about any fact you use, no matter how solid, is being used to support or to oppose. Would you support this sentence in the lead (assuming for the sake of argument that it is factual): "Over 50 million vertebrate animals were blinded, burned, poisoned, drowned, and dissected in U.S. laboratories last year." No, because you would want to say there's another side to it. Well, that's all I'm arguing here -- there is another side to the sentence "Mice were used in the development of penicillin," but we were not allowed to add that other side to that paragraph. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. With this kind of contentious issue, I think every section, and ideally even every paragraph, have to reflect the opposing POVs. So if there is a statement about benefits of AT, it has to be balanced by costs, in terms of animals killed or injured. This is especially important in the lead, that summarizes the entire article. Crum375 (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted in that paragraph was literally a few words along the lines of "but opponents of animal testing argue that the use of animals in such studies may be unnecessary and may even slow the research down," with a link to a good source who argues this. But it wasn't allowed, and the result is (as I see it) a POV lead, and one embodying a fallacy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a wiki. ;^) Crum375 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I recall that several of us tried for quite some time, but we were reverted a lot, so we gave up. My "ownership" of the article obviously isn't as tight as it could be. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is owned by the Foundation, and the Foundation wants NPOV, which means every paragraph, if at all possible, needs to be balanced, especially with a contentious subject. Crum375 (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was always more concerned about the fallacy than the POV. It would be (almost) like starting an article on Feminism with "all male Nobel prize winners have been married" (implication: you couldn't have done it without the women!) I'm exaggerating a little here, because I can't think of a close analogy, but it's along those lines. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that NPOV, V and NOR, when applied properly, will tend to expose obvious fallacies. Crum375 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And what I am saying is that there are two sides, advocacy and criticism, one either side of that neutral fact. You appear to be seeing all content in this article as being expressed "in support of" or "in opposition". That is an inherently issue-based perspective of animal testing. Look at other articles about scientific techniques. Their articles describe the technique, describe its use and describe its history. Then there may be a section on criticism and controversy, but every single factual sentence is not considered to be promotion that needs to be countered by an argument. We don't describe "all the good and all the bad and all the useless" uses of other techniques, we describe ones that had an impact in the field of science and the ones that the other sources describe as notable. In those articles the facts are not being used to support or oppose, they are being used to describe. That is what I have been trying to bring to this article - a description of what animal testing is.

It is not neutral to consider this article only from the viewpoint that it is an issue. It clearly is an important issue, and there obviously should be much greater coverage of that than in comparable articles on scientific techniques, but for better or worse it is also an integral aspect of experimental science that can be described neutrally. A good encyclopaedia article has to cover all aspects of animal testing, not just the debate. Rockpocket 07:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to describe what AT is, and how it's done. When we get to results or benefits, that has to be balanced with costs in terms of animals killed or hurt. I think that's NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RP, the issue of Nobel prizes was added to the lead for a reason, and not because it is purely factual. It was added to say animal testing is a good thing. That is why people (not you) fought so hard to keep out the other POV.

The scientific or the pro-testing position(s) are not the default. There is no default position. Everything about the subject is controversial and polarizing, and this article should reflect that. Not "Here's X's list of arguments, and here's Y's" because that leads to articles that can be hard to read, but by weaving the different positions as intelligently as we can throughout the text. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the pro-testing position is default, I'm saying the consensus description of a fact is default and should not be treated like an argument per se. Your argument is like saying the scientific consensus on evolution experiments is not default and needs to be countered by the intelligent design position lest it sounds like we are promoting evolution. Neither am I suggesting we completely separate the science from the debate, we can weave them together in a appealing and informative way. What I am saying is that every statements of fact describing animal testing is not necessarily an argument for it, and should not always be interpreted as such if it doesn't explicitly say so.

But how would you feel if I were to add a bunch of facts to the lead that would animal testing look bad, but that really were just straightforward facts e.g. as I said above, "last year 50 million animals were burned, drowned, poisoned, suffocated, and dissected in the U.S." Assuming that is true and we had a source, you still wouldn't allow it. All I'm trying to argue is that facts that seem innocuous, straightforward, default, may not look that way if you don't hold a pro-testing POV. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that statement specifically. I'm not a big fan of citing Nobel Prize winning experiments as a badge of honour and I can see how it gives that impression (I have met a number of Nobel Prize winners and they range from genius to otherwise unremarkable, but lucky). What I consider to be important in that sentence is two aspects: That the scientific consensus accepts scientific merit of animal testing, and that it is so widely used that it is involved in almost aspect of science. That sentence (and the one prior) is one way of making those points, if we could make them in a way that you consider to be less promotional, then I would be happy to see that.

Yes, these are important points and informative. Who won a Nobel prize doesn't really have anything to do with animal testing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with offering commentary about this in the lead either, but if we are going to offer criticism, I also think we should offer an advocate's opinion. That is, if we are going to suggest that some consider it unnecessary and restricting advances (and it could indeed), then we should also note that some consider it to be essential to driving advances (again, it could indeed). Both of those are unknowns, because the status quo does not permit us to test them and both summarize the different interpretations of what the facts of animal testing mean for further biomedical research. Rockpocket 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and we could include those arguments without reference to Nobel prizes. What if we found out that 200 scientists who had once tested on animals were charged with wife battery last year? I'm using an extreme example to illustrate the point that there are all kinds of facts about the science and the scientists that would put animal testing in a very poor light. But those are not in the lead, and rightly so. Look at the wars we had over whether to say in the lead that most animals are killed after the experiments. Every fact that sheds a good light is allowed in. Every fact that sheds a negative light we have had to fight tooth and nail for. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify -- none of the above is a criticism of you personally. You've always been good to work with on this page, as on others. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It might help separate the heat from the light to substitute a different experimental technique and see how a sentence sounds. "Enzyme assays are a central part of in modern biochemistry, and the data they provide has been essential in discoveries as diverse as identifying how the body uses food in cellular respiration, to how hormones act as signals." I can source all those statements to reliable sources, but is this a NPOV sentence? How would you re-write it to make it NOPV if you disagree? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear about the point of the example. The argument here is that, in a subject as controversial as animal testing, almost all facts will signal a value — either in themselves, or by the way they're expressed, or by the context in which they are used. How does your example support or refute that argument? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If we can decide on how to present a scientific technique about which none of us have any strong feelings, this will inform our decision on issues where people's judgement is less dispassionate. A good test for NPOV is to substitute in a subject that arouses no strong feelings and see if the sentence still sounds sensible. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Enzyme assays are absolutely central to modern biochemistry, and, contrary to the ill-informed speculation of critics, the data they provide has been essential in discoveries as important as identifying how the body uses food in cellular respiration, to how hormones act as signals.
• Enzyme assays are a controversial part of biochemistry, the data they provide does not always reflect what occurs in the body and their use has been strongly resisted by protein rights activists.

Tim, I see what you're trying to do, but the strong feelings are the whole point of the argument, so if you remove them, the point is missed. What am I saying is that animal testing is so controversial that it is almost impossible to use a fact that doesn't incorporate a value at the same time -- by its placement, by the words used, or in and of itself.

Any analogy that isn't a controversial issue misses that fundamental point.

A better analogy would be found if we were to look at another controversial issue. Imagine Wikipedians writing about the slave trade while it was still ongoing. Use the word "negro" and maybe you're supporting it. Use the word "African American," and you're making a clear political point. Use the word "African," and maybe you're saying these people don't below in America. Use the word "black" and -- well, I don't know, but you take the point. When things become controversial, everything becomes tinged by opinion -- words and facts become infected -- and the key to writing about these issues well is to get it all out in the open, even in our own minds. We have to make ourselves completely conscious of our own biases, and the way our language reflects them and serves to hide them, even from ourselves. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems completely the wrong way to approach it. As you said earlier "What is needed is a group of editors who are each willing to write entirely neutrally, as though they're Martians who've landed, with access to a huge library about animal testing, but with no vested interests one way or the other, and who will write in skeptical, disinterested tones." Any strong feelings are irrelevant to the article and should be excluded entirely from our judgments. I know that what you are saying is that it will be hard to do this, and this is a very difficult issue for some people, but we must try to ignore the controversy. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we have to always bear in mind that our own language and what we see as a relevant facts will interfere with that neutrality. That's really my only point. For example, if it were up to me, I would call animals "non-human animals" throughout, or at least on first reference, whereas you want to say "vertebrates." My subtext is: "We're animals too!" Yours is: "Most experimental animals are fruit flies!" SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with both uses in the appropriate place, not because of sub-text but because it is accurate. Mixing technical and non-technical uses of words leads to misinterpretation and can be misleading. You allege we wish to say "vertebrate" because the sub-text is "most experimental animals are fruit flies". Absolutely. Most experimental animals are fruit flies, so to say mice are the most tested on animal is simply misleading. By the same rationale, I would agree with the use of "non-human animal". Again, because humans are animals (technically speaking). It comes down the the same problem: information needs to be described accurately. There is no excuse for providing misleading information simply because a reader might infer something is unwritten. Rockpocket 21:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In general the language should be as precise as possible. You don't say "animal welfare groups oppose" when the RSPCA does not oppose, instead you say "anti-vivisection groups oppose" nor say "research in animals has raised serious ethical concerns" when experiments on nematodes raise no such concerns, instead you say "research in vertebrates has raised serious ethical concerns". Precision is key and also assists in maintaining NPOV be preventing inaccurate generalisations. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-human vertebrates would be more precise than vertebrates, but you'd call it POV. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm quite open to that formulation. I tend to agree with Singer that species boundaries are entirely arbitrary when discussing morality. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For the longest time, I wasn't even able to write "non-human primate" on Wikipedia without someone deleting it as POV. I had to keep providing sources showing that the animal-testing industry uses the expression itself. We have the same issue with "euthanize." The simplest word is "kill," but pro-testing editors want to use "euthanize" to blur that. But on PETA, when they killed a bunch of cats (apparently) unnecessarily, anti-AR editors were insisting that the word "kill" be used, even though PETA was saying "euthanize." :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Either is better than the absurd formulation "sacrifice", which always raises images of the Indiana Jones films for me. I welcome the use of "non-human primate", since humans are certainly primates. Precision, precision, precision. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of researcher

In the Threats to researchers section, is there a reason we don't name the researcher? His name was in all the press articles about this, as I recall. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If he or she was named in the reliable sources, then I see no reason why not. Though I do have an issue with a link to a site that published a private individual's phone number and address for the obvious purpose of encouraging harassment. Rockpocket 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bingo!--Animalresearcher (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was Animalresearcher who added the link and the name of the group, as he's the one who wrote that section, so far as I know. But yes, the name was published by reliable sources, which we link to, yet don't name him ourselves. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would naming the victim add anything useful to the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, information. :-) It just looks a bit odd without it. We give quite a bit of detail, so it's very noticeable that we don't name the researcher -- which would be fine if no other RS had, but given his name was in most of the newspapers that reported this, it seems strange that we omit it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's do what the best of our sources do. Which was the most authoritative of these sources? People rarely criticise you for following the editorial example of papers like the NYT. (well except on conservapedia). Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it may look odd. And I perhaps was inappropriate in not including his name (Dario Ringach). To me, he looks like someone that could be me in another six months. Someone with no history of violation of animal welfare law, someone in good standing with the scientific community, and well respected by his peers, who has his career completely dismantled by animal rights activists over his concerns for the well-being of his wife and young children who are being hounded by animal rights activists. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on subpages

Can we establish, as a consensus, that material covered in detail on the various subpages of Animal Testing only be briefly summarized on the Animal Testing page, following style guidelines of WP:LEAD? ie: If there is a subpage on the History of Animal Testing, then detailed edits would occur on the History of Animal Testing page, and the referral section on the Animal Testing page would act as a summary of the History page, roughly devoting coverage to the detailed coverage on the History page? --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's more or less what has happened, but for you "briefly summarized" would mean one or two sentences, and would leave this page as nothing but a list of internal links. The page has to be readable, so that people could read this without being forced to go to other pages too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vivisection edit

I really don't see the point in continuing to try to insert vivisection as an appropriately neutral term to refer to physiological experiments on animals. It is almost never used by those who practice animal experiments, and almost always used by those who oppose experiments. This careful choice of terms occurs because definitionally vivisection means cutting on live animals, and does not imply purpose in that cutting. Animal experimentation, testing, in vivo experimentation, etc, all imply purpose. In any case, I don't see the point in re-defining the common use of the term here - it is a PR stunt. However, I will happily recant if you can find some evidence of the use of the term by physiologists to describe their own work. I have never heard it used in such a context (by a physiologist to describe his own work) except in an extremely facetious tone on our way to the OR. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AR, once again you're using personal knowledge/opinion. One of the sources is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. We've been through this before, and others on this page (e.g. Rockpocket) were fine with it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy with it as long as it is noted that animal testers "almost never" use the term. As a comparison, you "almost never" hear a white person in the USA use the word "nigger", and it is just as clearly pejorative. And if you do not see the appropriateness of that analogy it is because that word has not been applied to you in that context ie: you need to see both sides of this particular issue. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing

Crum, it was me who removed "On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on living animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge," because it's an example of a sentence that doesn't say anything. It would be like adding "Those who opposed animal testing did so because they thought it was bad and unnecessary."

We need informed opinion attributed to authoritative sources, as was done with Bernard arguing that an effect on an animal can be presumed to lead to a similar effect on a human being. That's a substantive point, attributed to a key player. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Tim, the term vivisection is more often used by animal protection groups, not just animal rights. Did you have a reason for changing it? Here for example the Guardian refers to the RSPCA as an anti-vivisection group, and the RSPCA is definitely not animal rights. [10] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just linked to the page in Wikipedia, perhaps you're right, "anti-vivisection" is a better term. I'll pipe the link. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But why are you linking to animal rights? AR is a very specific subset of anti-vivisection which in turn is a subset of animal welfare/protection. It's important not to get them mixed up. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but "animal protection groups" was wrong as well, since as you say organisations like the RSPCA are certainly animal protection groups, but are not opposed to animal experimentation. "Anti-vivisection" is most precise, but what is the best page to link this to? Should it be linked at all? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't link it, but if you want to, "animal welfare" might be more accurate than "animal rights." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The link was removed, that seems a good call. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bernard

Why don't we want to say that Bernard's wife founded the first French anti-vivisection society? It's been removed twice, but it's a fascinating detail, and shows what a polarizing issue this is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary/secondary sources

Someone here was asking elsewhere for definitions of primary and secondary, so I'm posting this from an early version of WP:ATT, which I think is clearer than the defs on the current NOR page:

Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. The Bible is a primary source. The White House's summary of a George Bush speech is a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources; for example, anyone could try to use the Bible as evidence that God said homosexuality was a sin. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should not interpret the source material, but should simply describe it. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. A journalist's account of a traffic accident is a secondary source. A theologian's account of what the Bible says is a secondary source. A New York Times account of a George Bush speech is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primary source material for themselves. As a rule, we want to know what Professor Smith, the theologian, says about the Bible and homosexuality, and not what User:Smith says about it, even though both are relying on the same source material.

Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources, though of course primary sources can be included -- they just have to be used very carefully. The more controversial the subject, the more care is required with their use. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Example of the kind of material we need

Animalresearcher, you added elsewhere an example of the kind of material we need here. Talking about the development of the polio vaccine with Rhesus monkeys, you wrote:

Albert Sabin made a superior "live" vaccine by passing the polio virus through animal hosts, including monkeys. The vaccine was produced for mass consumption in 1963 and is still in use today.It had virtually eradicated polio in the USA by 1965.[27] It has been estimated that 100,000 Rhesus monkeys were killed in the course of developing the polio vaccines, and 65 doses of vaccine were produced for each monkey.

The sentence about how 100,000 monkeys were killed producing vaccine for 65 x 100,000 is exactly the kind of material we need in this article. If we could isolate a couple of very stark cases like this, where the benefits of the research were clear and direct, and then also find good sources discussing the cost, we could make a really neutral presentation that I think readers would find very educative. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If only all the references were as concise and to the point on the animals used and benefits provided...--Animalresearcher (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Human self-experimentation

I agree with the inclusion of this material. However, if we are including voluntary experiments on humans in this article we need to modify the sentence in the lead that states "Opponents argue that animal testing is cruel and unnecessary,..." into "Opponents argue that some forms of animal testing are cruel and unnecessary,". I would be very skeptical of any claim that people regard human experiments with the full consent of the participants as cruel.

Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is about non-human animal testing. If people want to create a separate page on human volunteers, that would be good. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've restored to the lead that the article's about non-human animal testing. We used to say that, but someone removed it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you favor restricting this page to non-human animals? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that's what the terms animal testing, animal research, and animal experimentation refer to when used by all the reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

True, illogical but common. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that the phrase "animal testing" is a misnomer because it excludes humans; I feel that a section contrasting aspects of human testing and nonhuman animal testing would illuminate those aspects and the choices available to society in seeking experimental data. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think such a contrast gets the the ironic heart of the issue in that animals are treated like mere animals because they are not special like us humans and are tested in the first place because we humans are non-special animals so very like them that the experiments tell us also about humans. There is a schizophrenic disconnect in the arguments of hardliners on both sides. Which experiments are done on humans and which are done on non-humans and why illuminates. Moral guidelines used for humans versus non-humans brings into sharp relief options and possibilities. Naturally, to avoid original research, we want sources that themselves do this contrasting. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of precision in the first sentence to clearly identify the subject of the article

Current: Animal testing or animal research refers to the use of animals in experiments.

Proposed: Animal testing or animal research refers to scientific medical or biological experimentation on living animals.

Reason:

1. We are addressing science related behaviors and not other possible uses of animals in experiments.
2. We are addressing medical or biological related behaviors and not other possible uses of animals in experiments. (There is significant but not total overlap in these terms.)
3. "the bodies of living animals" rather than just "animal" to rule out experiments on dead animals and on living tissue seperated from the body (e.g. blood).

Things ruled out:

1. Children experimenting with insects. (unscientific)
2. Parrots experimented on to judge their IQ. (psychological, not medical/biological)
3. Experiments with blood or other tissue removed from an animal.
4. Experiments on dead bodies. (If we want to cover that we should explicitly say so.)

WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "living animals", which is a bit simpler. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Tim, why are you removing sources, and trying to minimize this practice? Most dogs in the United States are supplied by Class B dealers, so this isn't a minor issue. Read the Newsweek piece. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed an unpublished conference abstract. This fails WP:V. I'm surprised you added such a poor source when there is a reliable publication on the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a paper given by academics to an academic conference. It is not a poor source.

Could whoever added the Brooman/Legge book, Law Relating to Animals, say which page number they found the material on? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Conference papers are not peer reviewed. You pay your registration fee and you get your abstract "published". Note the source is listed as an "Unpublished Manuscript", which makes it about as reliable as anything you or I choose to say about the subject. WP:RS is clear that scholarly "means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Rockpocket 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If it were a sole source, it would be a problem, but it's just a courtesy source and is fine for that. I've e-mailed them to ask if it's been published anywhere, then we can link to it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, at least in the areas I am familiar with, you can't get your paper accepted for presentation and your abstract published in the proceedings unless your submission undergoes some scrutiny by the organizers. It may not be a full fledged peer-review process, but it's also not "anything goes". Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unpublished abstracts are by no stretch of the imagination reliable sources. I man astounded that anybody could even try to argue that this meets WP:V. I have submitted abstracts myself, I know from personal experience how little review they undergo. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To be accurate here, this is unpublished but accepted and presented at a scientific conference. The conference organizers, as a rule, do some vetting of each presented paper. Yes, sometimes some poor ones may sneak through, but that affects the perception of the conference by others, and may affect the pocketbook of the organizers. In any case, I agree it is not a full peer review, but it's also not just 'submitted'. Crum375 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection here. The paper was written by two academics and presented to an academic conference. It is not supporting anything; we supply it for interested readers only. It is not saying anything contentious, because many other sources are saying the same. And since when has source material had to be peer-reviewed? This seems a tremendous fuss over one link -- is Wikipedia running out of space? :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

At the very most conference organisers review an abstract, which is clearly not a peer review of the data. Large conferences can have tens of thousands of published abstracts, they review committee do little more than read the titles to ensure suitablility, there is no critical review. I note, also, that it doesn't appear to have been published in a journal subsequently. If you are claiming the souce is valid because it is scholarly, then it should adhere to WP:RS, which it doesn't. I don't have an issue using it supporting other data, as further reading, but it is not appropriate as a sole source for information. Rockpocket 19:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But it was never used as a sole source, which is why I'm puzzled by this discussion. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My part of the discussion was to note - pedantically - that it is not a reliable source, I can't speak for anyone else ;p Rockpocket 19:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, pedantry, fair enough. :-) We did have a discussion on V about whether unpublished conference papers were reliable sources if they had actually been delivered as a talk to an audience, but I don't remember the outcome and don't have the strength to go hunting through V archives. I recall that it led to a PhD length discussion about the meaning of "published." :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just remembering the first conference abstract I submitted, I spelled Trypanosomatids wrong and nobody noticed. Usually these things go straight from the application form to the abstract book, so have no fact-checking or editorial input at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This was replaced again? Why? It isn't needed and it isn't reliable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's interesting and part of a footnote -- not being used as a source. Why are you so focused on it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the point is that is was not just a submitted abstract, but a presented paper. All we are saying is that these two academics presented this paper at that conference. The information in it seems to conform to what all the other sources are saying, so it's not controversial. Crum375 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you asked earlier if I wanted to collaborate with you on this article, and I said yes. But that can't include going back and forth several times discussing and edit warring over links in footnotes that are provided as a courtesy to the reader. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that don't meet WP:V can't be included in the article. Furthermore this link to an unpublished abstract does not add anything that isn't covered by the reliable full-text sources we already have for this statement. Since we already have two much more informative sources for this statement, why add a third, unreliable source? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not add it, Tim? Why does a link have to be removed from a footnote (what, four or five times you've removed it so far?) just because you personally dislike it? If you don't like it, just don't look at it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I dislike it so much because I have been submitting and presenting abstracts and talks to academic meetings for many years now, and I know exactly how little review the published abstracts undergo. They don't get peer-reviewed, they don't get edited and, in some cases, it is obvious that they didn't even get proofread before submission. As I said above, my first one had a glaring error that was obvious to anybody in the field. These things just aren't reliable in any way. I realise these things might look impressive to people outside the field, but they really mean very little. However, if you insist on adding this unreliable source, for whatever reason you have, I won't keep removing, but all it does is add kb without contributing any verifiable information. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Vast majority are purpose bred"

I have placed that statement in the lead inside an edit comment, because I see several problems with it. First, it hasn't been established in the article's body. Second, in the UK, I see a 60-40 split for bred vs. supplied, which isn't "vast". Also, I think there is a problem with numbers in general. If 99.99% of fruit flies are purpose bred, it could overwhelm the other species. So I think sourcing needs more discussion prior to a simplified summary in the lead. Crum375 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying vast majority purpose bred? It depends which country, which species etc. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "supplied" and "custom bred" are mutually exclusive. Suppliers still custom breed animals for experimentation. I thin the issues is more one of captured vs bred. Rockpocket 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Some suppliers breed them, some don't. Most dogs in the U.S., for example, come from Class B dealers, apparently. I don't know why the lead ever said the "vast majority," but I've tweaked it to make clear it varies. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I made this a bit more specific, since we can be certain that some spp are always bred for the purpose - catching nematodes in the wild would be an unrewarding task! Indeed, since invertebrates and rodents are always bred in captivity, and these organisms make the overwhelming majority of animals used in experiments, it it true that most organisms used in experiments are purpose bred. I'll look up some content for the Sources section to discuss inverts/rodents - we'll need to mention where the most common animals come from. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Material added on invertebrates and mutant mice, two of the largest sources of animals for research. Also merged all the US material into one paragraph and removed some, but not all, of the material on bunching. This is already covered in great detail in the daughter article and is giving undue weight to a problem with one of the sub-sets of dealers of a comparatively rare group of research animals in a single country. Having some material on this is fine, but devoting most of a paragraph to this when rodents (the most common research animals) were not mentioned at all was unbalanced. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not keep removing material that other people have worked on, and don't remove sources. How many times do you need to be asked this? It is in a footnote. There is no justification at all for removing links that people add to footnotes.

I can't collaborate with you if you're going to repeatedly remove or completely change just about everything I write, even when doing so confers no benefit at all on the article. You are trying to turn this into a battle for its own sake. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have removed quite a lot of the material I have added to the article, such as most of the discussion of invertebrate research, now in the daughter article Animal testing on invertebrates. I have never complained about this, since editing other people's material is an expected part of working for Wikipedia. However, it appears to me that you apply one standard to the material you add, and a different one to the contributions of others. This most recent comment of yours, added to your previous complaints about me editing "your material" makes me suspect that you are having problems with article ownership. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you did this to me before, causing chaos, wikistalking me (to the point where another admin had to ask you to stop), starting forest fires of abuse about me on talk and project pages -- hundreds of posts in a matter of days. Indeed, that's how you ended up on this talk page, and it's why I stopped editing the article for awhile. But it's not going to work.

Material I have moved has gone to other articles for reasons of length and structure, and I've moved as much of my own material as I have of other people's -- more, in fact. You are edit warring over one link in a footnote that is not being used as a source, but is interesting because it's an example of academic criminologists addressing that particular issue -- any interested reader could e-mail them for their paper, as I have done. That you would cause this level of fuss over a link in a footnote -- when footnotes are very precisely for that kind of material -- suggests that you simply want to cause trouble. Rather than assist you by letting you bait me, I'm not going to respond to your posts from now on. I'm sorry about this. I had hoped we could actively collaborate but I see now it's unlikely to work. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, if you are determined to add an unreliable source, I won't continue to remove it, since it is not being used to support either a statement or a quotation. I'm a bit disheartened that you think I am trying to bait you, I was just trying to tell you what I feel about how the discussions on this article are conducted. One possible course of action might be to open an article RfC, to get feedback from the rest of the community, but that could be a bit disruptive. I would much prefer if you were to stop arguing that material you add to the article is in any way different from other people's contributions and stop protesting on the talk page when I edit or change text you have written. PS my cat Loki says "trfglllllll" - this took a while to write, since he is walking on the keyboard and clawing at the screen. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguments

I've moved the arguments to Talk:Animal testing/arguments, because the section was very disjointed. I'm going to start working on an ethics section, which I'll do on an article or user talk subpage until there's a first draft. My thinking is that we should have a separate article on that issue, and include a summary-style section here. Hope that works for everyone. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. The ethics are very badly covered here, considering how much has been written about the subject. We could try to put the arguments in the wider philosophical context of ethical thought, particularly the arguments about utilitarianism, the concept of rights and the various definitions of personhood. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Suffering

Regarding this:

"Suffering is harder to define, but has been described as when an animal is aware of their internal state during the experience of pain or fear," attributed to Duncan I.J. et al "The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare," J. Anim. Sci., 1991, vol 69, issue 12, pp. 5017–22.

Could someone check that reference, please? As written it doesn't really make sense. Suffering isn't an awareness of an internal state (an internal state about an internal state), but is simply the subjective experience itself. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the blue link in the reference you should be taken to the full text of the article. To read the text you will need Adobe Acrobat reader since it is in Pdf format. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Suffering on WP offers a far more complex view of it than that one source cited. However, I am not sure if it makes sense to delve into deep philosophical discussions about these issues in the main article. Crum375 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, perhaps it would be better to note that the word suffering as several meanings and that one definition is awareness of pain or fear. Other sources defining this would be good, the Stanford Dictionary of philosophy linked from the suffering page might be useful. I think it is important to at least give a basic definition here, since the question about if animals suffer, and if so which ones, is one of the central questions in the section on ethics SV is writing. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't make controversial claims like that without explaining the context and naming the authors. The authors of that paper are trying to put forward the argument that, unless there is a second-order mental state, there is no suffering. In other words, if you're not able to contemplate your state of fear, there is no state of fear; or rather, that state of fear isn't making you suffer. This is a dubious philosophical position, and the authors aren't philosophers. I've therefore removed it in favor of Marian Stamp Dawkins's simpler definition of an extremely unpleasant mental state. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. We need a reasonable, brief, working definition by a recognized expert on animal suffering, that doesn't imply that animals are incapable of suffering. Crum375 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need anything from the definitions we quote - selecting one on the basis that it implies that animals are capable of suffering would be just as incorrect as selecting one that implies they do not. I agree that adding a second definition that explores the wider definition would be the best idea, but removing one side of the argument is unbalanced. We need to just report what the sources say on the topic, as I noted this is a hard concept to define. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim added:

"The importance of cognition in suffering is controversial, with some defining suffering as when an animal is aware of their internal state during the experience of pain or fear."

This is not a commonplace definition so we'd need more than just that one paper, and we'd also need to see that definition from an expert source -- which if you're talking about definitions of self-consciousness, would be a philosopher or perhaps a psychologist. As is stands, it looks either silly, or else the reader won't notice how it differs from Stamp Dawkins. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you said earlier that precision is important, and you often argue in favor of expert sources. But here you are being very imprecise, and the sources you're using are not experts on the definition of consciousness or mental states. If you want to make a point about animals not suffering unless they can contemplate their subjective mental states (as opposed to just experiencing them), you would need to find a specialist source who makes that argument -- a philosopher for example, or a psychologist. I await it with bated breath, because I suspect no such source exists, but I'd be interested to be proven wrong. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the paper again, I suspect what has happened is that the authors have simply made a mistake. For suffering to occur, there must be a corresponding mental state or subjective experience of something unpleasant. Something that might cause pain isn't enough, because the person might be in a deep coma, for example, and not experiencing anything. There has to be an awareness of the injury for pain or suffering to occur.

The authors have, I think, made the mistake of defining awareness as "awareness of awareness." This has probably happened because they're not experts in the field.

All that is required for pain and suffering is the ability to have a subjective experience. It is the experience of the injury that causes pain, not the experience of the experience. No second-order states are required. Indeed, if they were, we could not talk about the suffering of a new-born baby, for example. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The mental capabilities of animals is as much a biological question as a philosophical one - all emotions are the properties of nervous systems. This is a reliable source, and reviews the literature, so it is even a "secondary source" under your definition, thus even more reliable. For you to discount their statements because you think you personally disagree with them is a classic form of OR. It would be similar to me stating that we shouldn't cite a paper on a new gene because I "think the authors have made a mistake". I realise it must be frustrating to cite a study that you do not agree with, possibly for very good reasons, but we can't do our own research on Wikipedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not specialists in that field by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm not excluding them because I disagree, but because what they say is simply wrong. Please find another reliable (preferably specialist) source who makes the same argument. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Second source added that discusses this point, I could also add PMID 11190233, but that isn't full-text so you couldn't easily read it. Please note that the text no longer makes "an argument" about this point, only notes that people have discussed if it is important. Also remember that Wikipedia deals with verifiability, not truth. Excluding reliable sources because you think they are wrong is not something we can do. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That source does not discuss that point. It says only that subjective experience is necessary i.e. awareness. Not second-order mental states. Please quote which parts you're relying on. [11] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm relying here on the provision in V that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. [12] The claim that beings (whether newborn babies or animals) don't suffer unless they have a second-order mental state about it (i.e. the subjective experience itself is not enough) is an absurd and extraordinary claim, so I'm requesting multiple, specialist sources who argue that specifically and clearly. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, the text notes that people discuss it. Is noting that a debate exists an exceptional claim? I would say that the section on "Animal cognition" on p5002 of the Curtis review is a clear discussion of the importance of animal cognition to suffering. How would you summarise these sources? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that there's a debate about this? You've quoted one paper in which the authors have almost certainly just made a mistake. This is common when people try to discuss mental states without being entirely familiar with the subject. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A debate about animal cognition is not a debate about how higher-order mental states are required. Tim, I have concerns about the way you read and report this material. You seem to be misreading it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As SV explained, the issue is second order cognition, whether you need to know that you are suffering, or contemplate it, to suffer. Everyone agrees that conscious animals sense pain, and according to Stamp Dawkins's simple definition, that is enough to cause suffering. If experts argue that you need to be able to know that you are suffering pain to really suffer, then that would need to be properly sourced. Crum375 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can add as many sources as you wish to this statement. The latest one is from the journal Animal welfare so is a direct discussion of the topic in a journal devoted to the topic. It states "Deciding which animals might have the capacity for consciousness, and thus for suffering, and of what they might be conscious, are fundamental issues which set boundaries to the ranges of species to be given basic or special forms of welfare protection." Is this an acceptable source for showing that the topic is discussed? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim has violated 3RR; is using a source that does not say what he's claiming of it; and has added this very poor (indeed, nonsensical) writing:

"The importance of cognition in suffering is controversial, with other discussions of suffering considering the importance of whether an animals are conscious in assessing animal suffering."

I don't know how to deal with this kind of editing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor grammar corrected. My apologies. Please report me for 3RR if you feel adding sources to challenged material and re-writing it to deal with concerns discussed on the talk page is unacceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR and you do it frequently, thinking you can revert as you please, so yes, I'll be reporting you for it if I see it again. Please review the policy in the meantime, so you know what it says.

If people would just choose good sources and stick closely to what they say (and make sure you understand them yourself), this waste of time could be avoided. With controversial edits, we need in-text attribution. Not "some say," when it's just one; not "there is a debate," when it consists of two people. Also, who has said that only human beings can suffer? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody that I know of, that is a version by Crum375. I thought the previous version was more accurate Crum, since that simply notes that reliable sources have discussed the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your concern, Crum375, do you disagree that this topic has been discussed, or do you disagree with the quality of the sources that were used to show that it has been discussed? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read through the sources, and I can't really see that statement as accurate. So I restored the previous version for now, which makes no reference to the cognition issue. I think that if it is to be included, it should be carefully crafted, neutrally phrased, and accurately based on the sources. Crum375 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the specialist review in Animal welfare that stated "Deciding which animals might have the capacity for consciousness, and thus for suffering, and of what they might be conscious, are fundamental issues which set boundaries to the ranges of species to be given basic or special forms of welfare protection." was unclear on the question of whether people have discussed the importance of animal consciousness and awareness in assessing if they can suffer? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, we have a good version now. I'm quite happy with that wording. Thank you for editing and improving my addition SlimVirgin. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Tim, with respect, I think the issue here is that you're not familiar with this subject, so you're not picking up on small, but vital, distinctions the sources are making, and you also don't know who the main scholarly sources on it are. The issue of mental states is exceptionally complex and goes beyond the issue of animal testing, so very few academics working in the area of animal testing know how to handle it. If you want to get into it in detail, Patrick Bateson of King's, Cambridge chaired a working party in the UK a few years ago, which was very thorough. I don't have a link but it should be easy to find. But you are using junior academics who have never specialized in that area, then in addition you're not sticking closely to what they say. All the reverting and numerous talk page comments simply increases the confusion. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The respect is mutual. Thank you for your help with integrating the material, I agree completely that simple reversions of people's good-faith attempts to improve the article are unhelpful. However, on the positive side, from this to this is certainly a large improvement. Thanks to everybody who helped with this. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern

I have a concern about the way sources are being used. This edit about pain:

"Pain is an undesired side-effect of some experiments on animals, but in most experiments it is unnecessary. Attributed to Karas AZ. "Barriers to assessment and treatment of pain in laboratory animals," Lab Anim (NY), 2006, volume 35, issue, pp. 38–45.

The abstract says nothing about it being a "side-effect," which would be a bizarre claim. It calls it a "consequence." While the abstract does say it's unnecessary in most cases, this is part of an argument that there is evidence that pain is not being alleviated sufficiently. But that part was not included in the edit.

It's extremely important (especially with a controversial subject) that sources be used accurately, and that we don't change what they say, or lift what they say out of context.

The abstract says:

"Pain is an undesirable potential consequence of many of the procedures conducted on animals in the course of scientific research, and in most cases it is unnecessary. The US Congress, the public, and laboratory animal medical professionals have indicated that pain should be prevented or minimized in laboratory animals, yet there is ample evidence to suggest that unalleviated pain is still a problem for some laboratory animals. This evidence is circumstantial to some extent but has its basis in problematic issues of pain control in both veterinary and human medicine. The author attempts to identify specific barriers to reduction of pain in laboratory animals. She then seeks to determine the relative importance of each obstacle and to develop approaches to overcoming each obstacle."

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

http://oslovet.veths.no/compendia/LAS/KAP10.pdf is relevant. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this objection. The words "undesirable potential consequence" and "side-effect" are synonymous. A side effect is defined as "A peripheral or secondary effect, especially an undesirable secondary effect". The next sentence deals with how often suffering/pain is not relieved, but we need this to make it clear that suffering is neither desired nor, in most cases, necessary. This puts the statistics quoted into context. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If I were to pour pesticide into your eyes, you probably wouldn't regard the pain as a "side effect." The point is that the author would have used the term "side-effect" if she had wanted to. As she seems to have chosen her words carefully, we shouldn't change them.

In summarizing what she wrote, you basically turned upside down what she was saying. She was arguing that, although pain is unnecessary in many experiments, it's still not being alleviated properly i.e. there is pain, but there needn't be. You summarized that with "in most experiments [pain] is unnecessary," which distorted her point. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I think you are right about distorting the meaning a bit. The section is much improved now, and has good sources for the statements it makes. I'm glad we can work together so productively. However, the point about cognition and suffering still needs to be replaced, it is an authoritative source that directly addresses the topic, so this viewpoint should be included. I'll see if I can find a way of including it that does not give it undue weight. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the quote misrepresents the author's beliefs, though it does omit the wider point: that while pain is largely uncecessary, it is often present (unnecessarily so). The information might be better represented if it includes that caveat. Rockpocket 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad shape

This article is in really bad shape.

1. The overwhelming tone of this article is anti-animal testing.
2. The article has an overwhelming number of pictures sourced from animal rights sites like PETA, or medical pictures chosen for shock value.
3. Captions of the pictures advertise the animal rights groups, oftentimes before a description of what the photograph depicts. When the animal rights group simply provides the picture they should not be credited on the caption but on the image page.
4. Pictures that didn't provide shock value, but illustrated typical lab conditions have been removed. (by looking at the history 500 edits ago)
5. The writing is disjointed. Very few paragraphs can be read as singular items. They read like individual sentences slammed together. Each sentence is a paraphrase of a reference with no relation to the sentences around it. Is it possible this article is oversourced?
6. The writing has become so parsed that there are now non-sentences floating freely, such as "Allows scientists to determine the effect of the drug and the dose-response curve."
7. Odd placement of see also tags scattered all over the article. For instance: What does "international trade in primates" have to do with xenotransplantation?
8. The Further Reading section is a list of animal rights books. It is too long and un-necessary for an article so heavily referenced.
9. The External Links section is again, a collection of animal rights links. Some of these links are just newspaper articles. Why are they there at all? Use them as a reference or get rid of them.
10. The Organizations section is once again, a collection of animal rights links. There are a smaller number of links to medical organizations but most of them have no contextual text after the link. Why is this link farm list here at all?
11. Every section seems to have a statistic of how many animals are used in whatever experiments. This adds little to the article and adds major amounts of text. Maybe you need a statistics article.
12. The controversy section is a jumble of specific incidents, not an overview.
13. Information that is opposed to animal testing is included in the article after any sentence that could ever be seen as promoting it. For instance, the toxicology section; every paragraph ends with a rebuttal statement.
14. References are a mish-mash between external links inside the article text, and other links used as references in the "Notes" section. That means the footnotes have a dual-numbering system. Many inline external links are used repeatedly.
15. The article is protected from editing by non-adminstrators but is not labeled as protected or any deadline when it will not be protected. Sporadic contributors cannot make any improvements while administrators seem to be the ones causing this laundry list of bad writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.143.23 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is a resounding, "YES!" Anyone with any background in science, specifically drug development, sees this article for what it is, a forum for people who are against animal testing of any kind. I won't even call the Animal Rights Activists; this is a term they developed to make them sound like heroes. It's purely self-aggrandizement.

Why don't we link this page to pages of cancer survivors, or maybe we can show pictures of kids devastated by Polio. We can show children who have not been ravaged by measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, you name it. But they'll return to the old stand-by, thalidomide, which was never tested on pregnant animals before being used on humans and is a great example of why animal testing is so pervasively used for drug development. We could show any number of pictures, statistics, results. But, the people will never see the benefit. They are ignorant, and blissfully so, of the benefits of this testing. They don't want to see any good results, because that undermines their self-importance.

Of course, animal testing doesn't correlate 100% to humans, otherwise we would not need to put valiant humans at risk in clinical studies. The first phase of which is testing in healthy adults to determine adverse side effects. But, we wouldn't have any of the medical advances we enjoy (including vaccinations) without animal testing. "My kids were never vaccinated, because it's dangerous and they used animals to develop the vaccines" you say? Then they didn't get sick because everyone else did vaccinate their children. You should get down on your knees and thank all your neighbors for their sacrifice for your children's health.

Enough said, anti animal testing people will not even try to understand the benefits for the reason stated above, but thanks for the vent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.3.58 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. To answer your main question, yes, animal rights activists are very active in editing the page, in particular Slimvirgin, a Wikipedia admin editor. You can see, for example, that all the controversy events are listed on the main page, whereas the history of notable experiments and discoveries is on a sub-page.
2. I view the numbers as useful and somewhat neutral, although alternative formatting may improve their presentation.
3. Virtually any animal rights photograph may be replaced by a superior picture taken by a scientist. However, Wikipedia MUST have rights to show these images, and the animal rights images are without IP entanglement. But always, the better picture wins. If you replace any picture with a better one without IP entanglement, it will stay.
4. There is a constant push-pull between animal rights activists and others, and this results in nearly everything being referenced or deleted (and point/counterpoint). And in many case, outright obvious lies are printed because they are referenced, even when they are obvious (case in point: that chimps in testing can come from circuses and animal trainers which is a referenced factoid despite being an obvious lie, or that 1500-1600 chimps are in testing in the USA (there are only 1133)).
5. Slimvirgin really likes xenotransplantation, despite it have an inordinately small importance in the grand scheme of either testing or opposition to testing by activists.
6. If you do anything to minimize the controversy section it will be immediately reverted, and you will be accused of POV editing.
7. Without protection, too many of the edits are downright stupid (deletion of whole sections replaced by "Animal testing is MEAN!" or other edits irrelevant to testing on any side. The level of vandalism is high, and a look through the history will show that. Signing up for an account is a small price to pay.
8. I've been editing fairly regularly on the testing page, its sub-pages, and other pages, for roughly two years. And I run a lab that in part conducts animal research, and I sit on an institutional IACUC. I sort of view this as one of Wikipedia's weak areas - that a small group that uses referenced weak logic and referenced truth-stretching to the max can distort an article as much as this one is. However, you should have seen it two years ago... --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• "I've been editing fairly regularly on the testing page, its sub-pages, and other pages, for roughly two years ... However, you should have seen it two years ago..." You say that as though you've improved it. Here is a version shortly before you started editing it. What improvements do you feel you've made? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I found three references that claim the term 'vivisection' is a pejorative synonym for animal research and is mostly used by those who oppose the practice. It seems an animal rights editor thought it was interchangeable with the terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, none of which carry a similar pejorative connotation, In fact, this same editor brought to my attention a book that was one of the sources, so I am quite certain that this editor KNEW that vivisection is an intentional pejorative, and was simply inserting it for PR value.

Two of your sources were rubbish. The source I used is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a well-known bastion of animal rights extremism. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier I corrected an animal rights edit that claimed primates are often housed alone because of testing requirements for hepatitis and/or SIV. However, they are often CAGED alone, but almost never HOUSED alone, and there is a big difference. Before that I corrected an animal rights edit that said that primates often came from zoos, circuses, and animal trainers, and added a reference that 3/4 of US testing primates come from purpose-bred sources.

But the source you used didn't, so far as I could see, say that three-quarters of primates are purpose bred. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior to that I added the history of chimp usage in the USA to the primates page. Half the "History" page was added by my edits, and ALL the notable experiments on the primates page. I will admit you are adamant in reversing my edits (in fact now that I mention these, I expect each and every one to be reverted for some inane reason that causes you to re-insert lies on the pages - can't wait to see circuses and animal trainers again), but ultimately good references are preferred to bad ones. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference for the animal trainers thing from a specialist advocacy group. They may be wrong, but all we can do is rely on people who specialize in this area. Your sources have never been explicit about where the non-bred ones actually come from. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AR, you don't want me to find diffs showing all the sources you've misused in the 18 months you've been editing. At times it has been breathtaking, and you know it. :-) Even people on your "side" have commented on it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't make things up. My source (American Society of Primatology) says 12000-15000 are wild caught (the rest purpose bred), and over 62000 primates were used in testing last year. 3/4 is a little conservative, but ball-park accurate. I suppose you are next going to claim that is OR. YOUR source says chimpanzees come from circuses, zoos, animal trainers, wild caught, and purpose bred, yet it is documented that every US chimp since 1973 was purpose bred. And you cannot find a single other source to back up the zoo/circus/animal trainer claim, yet you feel this single New England Anti-vivisectionist Society cite is MORE accurate than science magazine. This is EXACTLY the type of misleading editing I am talking about. When I provide THREE edits that claim that the term vivisection is pejorative, you delete two of them and cherry pick the wording for the third. POV editing at its finest. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words in your sources' mouths. If they say three-quarters, you say it. If not, not. AR, really and truly, you can't talk about anyone else making misleading edits.

The reason this happens is you can't be bothered with Wikipedia's rules. You have The Truth and you want to get it out, fast. I completely understand this. I think when you have expertise in an area, it's beyond infuriating to be expected to stick to rules and stick to sources -- even when you think they're wrong, misleading, incompetent, whatever.

But the point of our rules is that experts who think they know the truth are sometimes wrong. Or if not wrong, idiosyncratically correct. If you're a researcher yourself, you should understand the importance of being true to your sources.

The way you're currently approaching WP, you're wasting any expertise you might have, simply because you're not approaching sources carefully. It would be great if you'd agree to collaborate with us, by giving us the benefit of your knowledge, then we can work out how to get it in the encyclopedia in a way that satisfies the content policies. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On vivisection

With regards to the recent reverting over the meaning of the term:

• The Ethics of Animal Experimentation by Donna Yarri (ISBN 0195181794), p12: "The term 'vivisection' was used often in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to refer to animals experimentation. It specifically meant the dissection of live animals, but is now broader and includes the use of animals for the induction of disease and for educational purposes. This term has largely been replaced by the term 'animal experimentation', both because the former word has developed a pejorative sense that many do want want to attribute to animal research and because animal research has to do with more than literally dissecting animals."
• "vivisection" The Oxford Companion to the Body. Oxford University Press, (ISBN 019852403X): "From the Latin vivi, living, and sectio, cutting, vivisection, strictly speaking, means cutting live tissues. As such it could be applied to any surgical procedure, including human operations. In practice the word is often used pejoratively as a synonym for experiments on animals, implying cruelty such as the infliction of operative techniques without the use of an anaesthetic."
• Paixao, Rita Leal; Schramm, Fermin Roland. Ethics and animal experimentation: what is debated?. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 2007: "Although the uses vary widely, the term 'animal experimentation' has been used generically. According to Paton (1993:24), this approach makes better reference to the wealth and diversity of scientific research... However, animal protection groups prefer the term vivisection and claim that scientists use the term 'experimentation' so as not to reveal what is really going on (Schar-Manzoli, 1996:3)."
• Pierre A. Fish, Zoophily versus Homophily, Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, Vol. 18, 1897, p142: "The onward march of events, accompanied by new conditions and new methods, has given a much wider significant to the term vivisection than was formerly attached to it. It is quite commonly regarded, by those opposed to the practice, as a method for inflicting ... excruciating pain."
• Richard Dawkins in Student MBJ: "Many animal research activists use the term vivisection - as in cutting open the animals without anaesthetising them. If that's happening, I'm passionately against it. I hope and believe that that is not happening in research laboratories."

Its pretty clear that there is a tension between the pro- and anti- community in the use of the term vivisection as a synonym for animal experimentation. Both groups have their own reasons for wanting it commonly used or not used (both, presumably, because of the imagery it invokes). I think there is significant enough sources to note this difference in use explicitly, rather than just giving two contrasting and attributed definitions and leaving it to the reader to work out. Rockpocket 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for collecting these, RP. It's because of the tension between secondary sources that I used the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This is when good-quality tertiary sources come in handy. But if you want to nuance the section a bit more, that's fine by me.SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Double undo

First on vivisection. As noted immediately above, the references I added fully support the sentence I added. First, Carbone's claims that vivisection is specifically not interchangeable with animal research or experimentation to him. In fact, he says he NEVER uses it to refer to testing. If you go through the references I think you will find that the word vivisection is not used comparably by those who oppose and conduct animal testing, and the references further support the word as having pejorative connotations towards testing because it implies suffering, cruelty, pain, and/or torture.

Second on the primate section. I added a bunch of reference material from an international conference on primate resources to the sub-page. It would be difficult to reference it all in this paragraph that refers to the sub-page, because important facts in it come from many of the different talks given. But if you see the primate page, it is all laid out there, and this is appropriate as per earlier discussion that the paragraphs referring to the sub-pages may act as summaries of the material there. There is nothing wrong with the 12000-15000 number (the actual number in 2001 was a little over 14000 according to the CDC), but whereas the facts are in the sub-page, they add a lot of clutter on the main page. Additionally, they lay out how all imported macaques from China and Mauritius are purpose-bred, which means that nearly all primates in testing in Europe and the USA are purpose bred b/c 74% of the macaques imported to Europe come from China, and Mauritius is the second largest source. For the USA, 70% are bred domestically, and most of the rest come purpose bred from China and Mauritius. But again, this was about making the paragraph in WP:LEAD fasion with respect to the sub-page, and making it flow nicely while minimizing clutter. Please try to be constructive instead of reverting material when the sub-page is edited significantly. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You removed the Encyclopaedia Britannica to focus on a single source that you happen to agree with?

Also, you inserted a contradiction: "In the U.S., Europe, and China, most primates are purpose-bred. In the USA, most are domestically purpose-bred, whereas in Europe 70% are imported, mostly purpose-bred macaques from China." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not a contradiction. In the USA, most primates in testing are domestically purpose-bred. In Europe, most are purpose bred and imported. In China, nearly all are purpose-bred domestically. So the statement that most of the primates in testing in the USA, China, and Europe are purpose-bred, is true independently of whether the primates are purpose-bred domestically or imported purpose-bred.

You would need very good sources to show that imported animals are known to have been purpose-bred. I'm curious to know why this issue is so important to you? Of course, it's important to be accurate, but you seem to be personally invested in this, as though perhaps you feel purpose-bred animals don't count somehow. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I previously provided THREE references on vivisection having pejorative connotations and not being interchangeable with the other terms. One of these references was a book YOU pointed out to me, so you must have been aware of this reference. Rockpocket found an additional FOUR references on this issue with respect to vivisection. When this many references are in agreement, it is safe to say that there is more to the word vivisection than its listing in Encyclopaedia Britannica. I actually did not mean to remove that reference either - just the statement that the terms are interchangeable. Clearly, an animal rights activist would like to claim the use of the word vivisection is interchangeable with the term animal research, but one reference in another encyclopaedia (a "worse" source than the other sources because it, like Wikipedia, prefers to base its entries on primary sources). The references support the idea that vivisection carries pejorative connotations that the other terms do not imply, and this means the terms are not interchangeable.--Animalresearcher (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The EB is a tertiary source. Tertiary sources are always better for definitions and word use. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

During the debate on the definition of "factory farming" you argued I don't know where you get the idea from that a dictionary is a good source for Wikipedia, because it's not in any of the policies or guidelines. On the contrary, these say we prefer secondary sources, not tertiary sources, for obvious reasons.[13] that newspapers as secondary sources are better than encyclopedias. The fact is that peer reviewed summary articles are best; that "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" are utterly awful concepts for capturing what makes a source better or worse for a claim; and that careful review of all available sources and careful comparison is needed to identify good from bad sources. Sources can include a misprint, mistake later uncovered, or deliberate fraud. No simple mantra can replace intelligent analysis of the contents of the available sources. Quoting policy to replace actual arguments is intellectually dishonest. No source is perfect. That EB is a good source for a definition does not prevent other sources from illuminating connotations. But don't get the wrong idea, Slim; in general, I think you do a good job editing wikipedia. I have even given you barnstars for it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not good sources for WP, but high-quality encyclopedias are, especially when it comes to word usage. And I have never received a barnstar from you.

What caused you suddenly to become interested in this page, by the way? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember long time ago seeing you create a bunch of articles about a pack of specific people involved in some Arab related incident and I gave you a barnstar for it. I think you thanked me on my user page for it. So I looked and found this:

Thank you! That is so nice of you, and it came at a time when it was much-needed. It has made my day. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I check my edits for august 2006 and found nothing, so I am guessing that my edit to your user page giving you a barnstar has been lost in all the whatnot going on with your userpage. I know I remember giving you a barnstar; but perhaps it was a compliment in some other form and you mentally categorized it as not-a-barnstar. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never received a barnstar from you. Can you answer my question, please? What caused you suddenly to become interested in this page? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of your harrassment of me. Stop asking personal questions and respect my privacy. Oh, and have a Merry Christmas. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My harassment of you? It's not me who's following you to articles you've edited a lot, and I've never touched before. And it has been happening quite regularly. Please keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I welcome new editors to this page, since a larger variety of views will help us achieve NPOV. A fresh eye is particularly valable in giving an unbiased assessment of how the article is shaping up and catching errors or unclear text that we have got just got used to. Tim Vickers (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of LD50 test

• Opportunities and Barriers to the Replacement of Animals in Acute Systemic Toxicity Testing - "the "classical" oral LD50 test was deleted from international pharmaceutical and chemical test guidelines in 1991 and 2002, respectively (9-10), and replaced with several reduction/refinement methods (11-13)"

• R&D toxicity test to be eliminated - "In a rare collaboration between animal rights organizations and scientists, the US has joined a growing worldwide movement to eliminate the use of a toxicity test called the lethal dose−50 (LD50) test, and embrace alternative methods that require fewer animals. Animal rights groups estimate that about 5 million animals per year have been used in LD50 tests in the US alone. The LD50 determines the dosage of a chemical that kills half the animals in a test group—the bigger the dose required, the lower the chemical's toxicity. Test groups typically comprise 50−200 animals, often rats. The test is being phased out internationally and will no longer be used by regulatory agencies for classification and labeling of drugs and chemicals. The International Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international trade organization that includes the US, Japan and several member states of the European Union, intends to eliminate the LD50 from its test guidelines by September 2002."

• Acute systemic toxicity—prospects for tiered testing strategies - "After many years of controversy and debate, the LD50 test was finally deleted by the end of 2002. Three alternative animal tests, the Fixed Dose Procedure, the Acute Toxic Class Method and the Up and Down Procedure have been developed which give rise to significant improvements in animal welfare. They have recently undergone revision to improve their scientific performance but more importantly to increase their regulatory acceptance. They can now be used within a strategy for acute toxicity testing for all types of test substances and for all regulatory and in-house purposes. In vitro cytotoxicity tests could be used as adjuncts to these alternative animal tests within the next year or so to improve dose level selection and thus give further modest improvements in the numbers of animals used. However, the total replacement of animal tests requires a considerable amount of further test development, followed by validation, and is at least 10 years away."

Are these sources adequate to show that the LD50 test is "being replaced" (if not now totally replaced) by alternative methods? I can find more sources on this if you wish. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source that specifically says that LD50 is no longer being used, and has been replaced by other methods? I see sources proposing or talking about replacements for LD50, but I don't see any source actually stating that LD50 has been replaced and is no longer being used. Crum375 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can't say that the LD50 test is no longer used anywhere, but we can be more specific and say that it is no longer recommended or required by "international regulations". I don't know if there are a few places that don't follow these regulations, but in the abscence of data on actual prevalence we should just note what is required and recommended. But there's not much point in discussing only the outdated test and ignoring the current ones. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If the sources say that some regulations have changed, or that there are proposals for changes relating to LD50, that is relevant. But the core issue is what is currently being done. We have reliable sources telling us that LD50 is widely used, and perhaps they are outdated. But unless we have sources telling us LD50 has actually been replaced, I don't see how we can say it has, or even imply it. Crum375 (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a 2002 review that states the LD50 is now historical, I think we agree that we need to show that the LD50 is no longer recommended in the regulations and is being replaced, but know that it has not been completely replaced in all countries since the 2005 Nature news story states that it is used in 1/3 of tests. Even with 1/3 of tests using the older test, it means that this is no longer the most common procedure.

"The authors have developed an improved version of the up-and-down procedure (UDP) as one of the replacements for the traditional acute oral toxicity test formerly used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member nations to characterize industrial chemicals, pesticides, and their mixtures. This method improves the performance of acute testing for applications that use the median lethal dose (classic LD50) test while achieving significant reductions in animal use."

The new version tries to strike this balance between LD50 no longer being the most common test, having been replaced in the regulations and being replaced in practice:

''In the past, the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50%) was the most common test, which involved determining what dose will kill 50 percent of the test subjects. This test was removed from international regulations in 2002, and is being replaced by methods such as the fixed dose procedure" Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to strike a balance — just report the well sourced facts. We have sources telling us LD50 is widely used. That's what we should focus on. We also have sources telling out about an intent to phase out LD50, and we can mention that. But the focus should be on facts on the ground, not proposals, intentions or plans. If we have sources that tell us that LD50 has actually been phased out, even partially (and if so by what percentage and where), then we could use that, but proposals, plans and intentions alone are of secondary relevance to describing what is actually being done today, per reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that the sources we have state that the LD50 is no longer the most common toxicity test and that it is no longer recommended or required by the regulations? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good source from a 2006 report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics:

"In the past, in the UK and elsewhere, acute systemic toxicity was investigated by the use of lethal-dose tests, in which the oral dose causing the death of 50 percent of the treated animals (the LD50 value) was determined.8 Such tests used at least 30 animals per test chemical and required death of the animals as an endpoint, regardless of the suffering caused. In 2001 the OECD agreed that the LD50 test for acute oral toxicity should be abolished and deleted from the OECD manual of internationally accepted test guidelines by the end of 2002 (see paragraphs 9.4 and 12.8).9 Several alternative methods have been developed which use fewer animals and in some cases replace death as the endpoint with signs of significant toxicity instead. Information on similar chemicals is used to guide the selection of initial dose levels and the tests are designed to avoid or minimise lethality or severe toxicity. These methods have replaced the LD50 test for acute oral toxicity, but several acute tests such as those involving inhalation, dermal and eye exposure have yet to be modified."

I think that is a fair summation. The removal of LD50 as a required or recommended procedure is both verifiable and notable, and clearly that has had an effect of its use. However, I don't believe there is good data either way that we can use to confirm the precise frequency of LD50 after the guidelines were changed. Clearly it is still being used in some instances [14], though its hard to know how widespread that is. I think a modification of your suggested phrasing, to note that its not being entirely replaced, would be good. Rockpocket 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How about:

"In the past, the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50%) was the most common test, which involved determining what dose will kill 50 percent of the test subjects. This test was removed from international regulations in 2002, being replaced in acute oral toxicity testing by more humane methods such as the fixed dose procedure. However, since some acute tests have yet to be modified, the LD50 test has not been completely eliminated." Tim Vickers (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add a note that there is a trend in some countries to replace LD50 by other methods, but at this point there is no hard data as to the status of this plan, and whether there is any real phasing out of LD50 on the ground. Since the article and the section primarily describe what is currently out there, not future plans, LD50 should still be the focus, per the sources we do have. We can't say or imply that LD50 has been phased out without a reliable source telling us that. Crum375 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you not consider the Nuffield Council on Bioethics a reliable source? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes. But I find their simplistic statement "These methods have replaced the LD50 test for acute oral toxicity" unclear. First, what country? Second, does "replaced" mean 100%, 50% of applicable procedures, or what? Third, what percentage of the tests are for "acute oral toxicity" compared to others?

Any interpretation of this could be OR unless we can provide a source discussing and interpreting it for us. Crum375 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nature news article gives you some percentages, it said that in 2005 the LD50 test was used in 1/3 of toxicity tests worldwide. We therefore know that 2/3 of tests use the alternatives, and that the LD50 is no longer recommended in the regulations. We could note that it has been banned completely in Britain and Europe, but that might be a bit parochial. Do you have any reliable sources that would contradict the simpler formulation of:

"The first toxicity test to be developed was the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50%), which involved determining what dose will kill 50 percent of the test subjects. In 2002, this test was removed from international regulations, which now recommend more humane methods such as the fixed dose procedure." Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to describe the LD50 and its wide use, per our sources. We can also add a note that it has been removed from some regulations for some procedures, but it is unclear whether this has had any impact on actual LD50 use worldwide. Crum375 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We know very well that the removal of the LD50 test from the list of approved tests in the regulations have had an effect, for example the test is now entirely banned in Europe. Animal Use in the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals: Harmonization and Emerging Needs - "The European Commission and all EU member states have banned the classical LD50 test." In addition you can read about the practical effect of the 2002 OECD ban here Inter-Governmental Organization Eliminates the LD50 Test or here Notorious animal testing gets the flick. What wording would you propose that accurately reflects our sources? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sources are contradictory. One says LD50 was "banned", while another says "OECD member countries are now expected to accept data from the alternative tests, in lieu of the LD50." So my question remains: is the LD50 still the procedure being used on the ground? I see no source that actually says that LD50 is not being used, or is used by only 50% of the labs or relevant procedures, etc.. I do see sources that tell us that European regulators have voted against it, but I see no source that tells us that this is mandatory (note the vague language above: "... are now expected ...").

If there is a source that tells us what is actually happening in the labs, as opposed to regulatory meeting rooms, it would be most useful. As of now, we only have the sources telling us LD50 is widely used. Crum375 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the OECD press release OECD Reaches Agreement to Abolish Unnecessary Animal Testing. This event is notable and verifiable, as you can see from the large amount of press that it generated. I have now provided a wealth of sources on this point, and made several suggestions on wording, now could you read through the sources and provide a constructive suggestion on what you think the text should say. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have already noted that we have sufficient sourcing to show there is a plan to eliminate LD50. The source you cite above also confirms it. The point is what is happening in the actual labs, on the ground. As far as actual usage, all we have are the sources telling us LD50 is widely used. At this point, we have no source telling us otherwise. So we can leave the LD50 language as it was, and add a note saying some localities plan to replace it with other techniques, and have passed some new regulations. We should be sure to clarify that the regulations are voluntary, if that's the case. If I am missing an important point, please let me know. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing an important point. The ban is is not something that might happen in the future, it happened five years ago. Moreover it is not simply a voluntary guideline, it has major practical effects. Read the Inter-Governmental Organization Eliminates the LD50 Test article - "The LD50 Test ban officially went into effect on December 17, 2002, after a year-long phrase-in period. In a practical sense, the ban means any company that, for example, wants to secure Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval for a new chemical product could be rejected purely on the basis of using the LD50 Test. Regulatory agencies such as the EPA can reject any data derived from the LD50 Test." Tim Vickers (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that point. What I am missing is a source that tells me that labs are actually no longer using LD50. If this is so clear cut, where are the sources? Crum375 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no longer used in Europe, some use remaining in rest of world. We don't have any sources that break down current use by type of test, so we can't add that to the article. How about:

The first toxicity test to be developed was the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50%) in 1927, which involves determining what dose will kill 50 percent of the test animals. Subsequently more humane methods such as the fixed dose procedure were validated, although the LD50 test is also still used. However the LD50 test has been banned in Europe and international regulations now recommend the use of alternative tests.

The problem I have with that wording is that it implies that LD50 is some relic, possibly rarely used anymore, while at this point we have not a single source telling us that a single real lab stopped using it. We need to follow the sources. They tell us LD50 is widely used, we need to state that, unless we have a source telling us otherwise. We can also mention that there are plans for moving to other methods, but without knowing if these plans have actually affected real usage, we can't say much. Crum375 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, we can be more specific: The first toxicity test to be developed was the LD50 test (Lethal Dose 50%) in 1927, which involves determining what dose will kill 50 percent of the test animals. Subsequently more humane methods such as the fixed dose procedure were validated, although the LD50 test was still used in about 1/3 of toxicity tests in 2005. However the LD50 test has been banned in Europe and international regulations now recommend the use of alternative tests. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't give us the real picture, and may distort what's there. We need to know how many of the tests that used to be based on LD50 are now based on other techniques, at least in rough percentage. We have no idea, looking at the sources we have. We also have no idea about the effectiveness of the bans and/or regulations — perhaps they are just decorations. All we have at the moment regarding actual usage are the sources saying LD50 is widely used. Everything else is intentions, plans, and our own conjectures. Actual usage is the key, and we need to stick to that. Everything else is secondary. Crum375 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reliable source we have on usage is cited, it says approx 1/3 of procedures. What other sources are you referring to? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tim here. Using data on specific usage prior to the "ban" (if there are some available) is much more misleading than using more generalized numbers collected afterwards. Moreover, saying something is "widely used" is essentially meaningless even if it is well sourced. 1/3 of toxicology procedures is a much better statistic to guide us. Rockpocket 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem in relying on the Nature article to say that LD50 is used for 1/3 of all animal testing worldwide. That would be all testing, not just toxicology, unless I am misreading the source. That still gives us no basis to indicate there is any decline in the actual use of LD50, since all the sources talk about regulations, plans and intentions, but not actual results in terms of animals undergoing LD50 tests per year vs. the new alternative procedures, and any trending. If there is such a source, please point me to it. Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of that comment in Nature is unclear, but it must mean by "animal testing" to say "animal toxicology tests", in Britain for example all toxicology tests accounted for just 15% of total procedures in 2004 (link p18) and in Europe in 2005 all toxicology procedures were 8% of the total (link p7) and acute toxicity tests were only about 40% of these toxicology procedures (p13). Therefore one acute toxicology test in particular can't account for over 30% of all procedures - that's just not mathematically possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but to me that could indicate that that author is confused and therefore unreliable. Either he incorrectly implies that LD50 is used in 1/3 of all animal testing worldwide, or his numbers are off, or he could in fact mean 1/3 of toxicology tests only, or perhaps only in some region or country and not worldwide. We really don't know, and speculating would be OR. Crum375 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So if we do discount that, what sources remain on the relevant proportions of types of acute toxicity procedures? What source is the basis for your repeated statements that the LD50 test is still a common procedure? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here is the same misunderstanding we have seen multiple times on this page. The scientific community use the term "animal test" to refer specifically to the toxicology testing of products on animals. They use the term "animal experimentation" to refer, more generally, to any procedure on an animal. The vast majority of animals used in science as not for "tests", they are for experiments.

So when Nature says "the LD50 acute toxicity test, which involves feeding animals with a chemical to determine the lethal dose, still accounts for one-third of all animal tests worldwide." The latter reference to animal tests means, literally, "the testing of products on animals", as it does throughout the entire article. It does not mean "animal testing" in the general way the anti-vivisection lobby uses the term. This is why I have consistently argued that we should no use the term "animal testing" and "animal experimentation" interchangeably, because a significant number of people that write about them do not do so (in fact, it is only the anti-vivisection lobby that does).

Therefore, it is not OR to draw the obvious conclusion, it is simply an educated understanding of the language used. He does mean 1/3 of all animal testing worldwide. Animal testing, not animal experimentation. Rockpocket 08:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the applicable statement in Toxicology testing to a quote, and think the same should be done here. I do think it is OR to put words into a source's mouth. Let's just go with what the source says. If there are other sources with relevant LD50 usage info, let's add them. Crum375 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That is just misleading, we all agree that such a figure is a mathematical impossibility with the meaning of "animal testing" that we use on this page. Quoting that sentence without the context to make it clear that it must be talking about "animal toxicology testing" will mislead our readers. Some good advice is that it is better to be vague than wrong, so I removed the quote but kept the note that the LD50 is still used - of that we can be certain. Similarly, what data is there to support the statement that the LD50 test is "the most common" toxicity test? We can't be sure on that point. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the next section of the Nature article it is quite clear that they are using "animal tests" to mean "animal toxicity tests", rather than the broad meaning used in this Wikipedia article:

"This is despite the acknowledged poor quality of most animal tests, which have never undergone the rigours of validation that in vitro alternatives now face. Most animal tests over or underestimate toxicity, or simply don’t mirror toxicity in humans very well."

This can't be referring to "animal tests" as a synonym for "animal experimentation", since it states that the sole purpose of animal tests is to assess toxicity. We can remove this confusion be converting the Nature quote to text. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to have a direct quote when there is any doubt. I think putting words into sources' mouths is OR. Crum375 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that the quote is confusing and contradictory? After all, you said above that you thought the conflict might "indicate that that author is confused and therefore unreliable" Changing the direct quote to summary text does not misrepresent the source, it simply removes the direct contradiction. An alternative would be to put a note after the quote that would state that the meaning of the words is unclear and they conflict with the government data. Which would you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think adding a brief note after the quote that "testing" most likely refers to toxicology tests, makes sense. Crum375 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put "toxicity" in parentheses to ensure the quote does not mislead our readers. If we are not willing to distinguish between "testing" and "experimentation" ourselves, then we have a duty to ensure that those that do are not misrepresented. Rockpocket 18:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

Tim, first, please stop adding citation templates to this article. WP:CITE says they should not be added against consensus. They make the text hard to edit.

Secondly, could you provide a source for "This test is was [sic] removed from international regulations in 2002, replaced by methods such as the fixed dose procedure, which use fewer animals and cause less suffering."

The sources you provide are either not online, or don't clearly say it. Page numbers or quotations would help, so people don't have to go hunting. It's not even clear what the sentence means -- "removed from international regulations".

Sources are:

• Walum E (1998). "Acute oral toxicity". Environ. Health Perspect. 106 Suppl 2: 497–503. PMID 9599698. and
• Botham PA (2004). "Acute systemic toxicity--prospects for tiered testing strategies". Toxicol In Vitro. 18 (2): 227–30. PMID 14757114.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the first source you question includes a direct weblink to the article, I'm puzzled how you could have missed the fact that the source is online (its the first blue link - "Acute oral toxicity"). Those are perfectly reliable sources, but we have a lot to choose from, as you can see above there is a wealth of material on this topic. Perhaps a summary from the Humane Society of North America would be close to your heart? Inter-Governmental Organization Eliminates the LD50 Test Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't online. Please quote and/or give a page number so we don't have to hunt. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll replace the citations with a page number and use the HSNA source. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ch

Do you have days where you wake up bored, and say to yourself "Hey! It's been a while since I've upset that nice SlimVirgin. I'll think it's time to go drive her up the wall again"?

You've been asked in the past not to add citation templates, so you add some more. You've been asked not to engage in OR, so you add your own pie chart. You've been asked to stop relying on primary sources, so you add more material that relies on them. You've been asked to stop removing sourced material added by others, so you remove some without explanation. You've been asked to make sure it's clear to other editors what your sources are saying, so you add material without quoting them and without providing page numbers. When this is pointed out to you, you add some more citation templates.

It might please you to know that you've been singularly successful in your aims, and she has indeed been driven up the wall yet again. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chart

The types of vertebrates used in animal testing in Europe in 2005.

Where in the talk page archive is this discussed? This is simply a re-graphing of the EU data in different colours. See Fifth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union figure 1.1 p4. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a useful figure to me, what is the concern with it? Rockpocket 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If the only change to an existing chart is the colors, I'm fine with it. But the page says he created it. If he did, it's OR. And if he didn't, it's probably a copyvio. Best to ask them to release it, and use the original. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the original chart has more information. To reduce it this way would be OR, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The chart uses the data from the EU report and merges the four minor categories of "Artio and perissodactyla" 1.1%, "other mammals 0.08%", "other rodents" 0.8% and "Carnivores" 0.3% into one category of "Others" 2.9%, but I think this is a bit more informative - it removes minor details - rather than adding any original research. I can put those data back in, but it would look a bit cluttered. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Either use the source's chart if they'll release it, or leave it, please. We don't want any OR in this area. It's too easy to make things appear to be this or that by talking in terms of percentages and charts. Suddenly, the 65,000 primates barely exist, because they've been overwhelmed by 40 billion fruit flies. Even your turning the chart around so that the mice are on top is OR-ish. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the chart tends to minimize the use of the larger and more complex animals, by using color graphics to overwhelm them. It would be better to simply use numbers, X fruit flies, Y mice, Z primates. Crum375 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you are actually arguing that rotating a section of a pie chart is original research? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying (as I've said twice already) that if you want to use that chart, you should contact the source and ask them, but not create your own, whether that involves rotating it (if it made no difference, why did you do it?), or leaving out some of their figures. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please take seriously that if it's very close to the source's version, it's a copyvio, and if it's not close enough, it's OR, so really the best thing is to e-mail them and ask if they'll release it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the presentation, which tends to minimize the importance of the larger more complex animals. Using this graphic, the primates disappear. Crum375 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem with using percentages. The source contains the figures directly above the chart, but on or page that layout would not be preserved. We've had a kind of agreement on this page for a couple of years (writing from memory) to avoid percentages unless accompanied by numbers. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you are not opposed in principle to graphs, Crumb. The primates are a very minor part of the statistics though, that is the data and we can't change that. I did choose as high a contrast between the primate colour and the adjacent colours to minimise that problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do have a problem when we use graphics, or percentages, to promote a POV. If we place all species on the same pie, it effectively implies we give them equal importance. That may be one person's POV, not another. Same for raw percentages. I think the safest way is to provide the numbers, which speak for themselves. Crum375 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about adding the numbers in the labels around the outside, Crum375? Therefore both "POV" you are concerned about are represented and the chart will be absolutely neutral. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Version 2.

I think the human eye is easily overwhelmed by color graphics. The numbers alone are not a "POV" — they are the neutral facts (per sources). Trying to color those facts is where we get into trouble. Crum375 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The percentages are also neutral facts (per sources). One set of facts are not more neutral than the other, it might even be that the raw numbers themselves might be used to support one POV, since the human brain is also easily overwhelmed by numbers with lots of zeros. I think if we can include both, and avoid any concerns in either direction. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think numbers are the only neutral form of conveying that information. Yes, if we see lots of zeros that may cause a distraction, but then different units can be used to reduce that effect (e.g. millions vs. thousands). Using percentages, even when properly sourced (reliability is not our main issue here) introduces a POV that all animals, from worms to primates, are equal commodities. Crum375 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When I made the chart, I used the EU data on vertebrate animals, which is POV from my perspective since invertebrates such as worms are much more common. In fact if anybody should be complaining about POV it is me, since this presentation of the data could be argued to minimise the importance of invertebrates to animal experimentation. Kind of ironic, isn't it? :) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We already provide extensive coverage of the number of animals of each species (in thousands and millions) that are used in various constituencies. If, in addition, one would like to collate these into a table then I would not be adverse to that. However, charting the proportion of each species used in the pursuit of science is a different statistic and provides verifiable information to the reader in an accessible format. Whether that chart uses numbers of percentages is irrelevant, as the proportions of the chart remain the same. Its use if certainly not promoting a POV; that chart mentions numbers not values. So while we should not hide that x thousand primates are used, neither should we hide from demonstrating its context. If the use of colour is a problem, then we can plot the same data as grayscale bar chart with a bar for each type of animal (this gets around the similarity to the original chart also). Rockpocket 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that presenting one species as a percentage of others, implies some equality between them. As an extreme example, imagine that some third world country were to test a drug on its prisoners. Would we then count those human test subjects as X percent of the total, which would include mice or worms? Clearly by using a percentage, or a pie chart, or any other graphic or tool that implies equality, we are introducing a POV that all these species are equivalent in some sense. This can then be used by those who want to obscure or minimize the importance of testing the more complex life forms by overwhelming the percentage, or the graphic, with huge numbers of the simpler ones. I think that numbers speak for themselves, and our readers can put them into their own perspective: X worms, Y rats, Z primates. Crum375 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about animal experimentation. This is factual, useful and verifiable information about the topic. We already note that invertebrates are much the most common form of animals used in these procedures, and that mice are the most common sort of vertebrate used. If your logic was correct, noting these facts would be POV. These facts have been an uncontroversial part of the article for a long time - are you now arguing that we should remove them? Rockpocket, I made a new version with all the original categories replaced, although some are a little on the thin side. Would you recommend labeling with just names, names and percentages , or names, percentages and absolute numbers? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Noting that many more flies are used as test objects than primates is fine. But to say, or graph, that primates are (say) 0.001% of the test animal population implies that complex and simple life forms are in the same category. I am not for hiding facts from the readers, on the contrary, I'd like all the relevant facts out. But by using graphs or percentages across species boundaries we, as Wikipedians, are telling the readers that we consider all these species, from worm to primate, equivalent. We are also, by sheer numbers of the simpler life forms, obscuring the smaller numbers of the higher ones. Crum375 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are treating mice and rats a bit too lightly, these rodents are not "simple life forms", they are mammals with highly-developed nervous systems. The fact that the graph does not include invertebrates such as worms clearly contradicts the idea that we are aggregating simple life forms with more complex ones such as mammals. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should not judge the specific complexities of the various life forms. Clearly mice and men are different, despite sharing 99% of their genes. Bacteria and humans share 100% of their DNA material, yet humans seem more complex. The point is that we cannot make judgments equating the various species and lumping them into percentages or producing graphs. That action tends to obscure the numbers of the higher life forms by overwhelming them with the simpler ones. The correct and neutral way is to present the numbers, and let the readers decide for themselves. Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The only "equality" the chart demonstrates is that all the vertebrates listed underwent an experiment. Inferring moral value (and hence a POV) from a figure about frequency is a non sequitur. You note the figure can then be used by those who want to obscure or minimize the importance of testing the more complex life forms. Yes it can, just as the raw numbers without context can be used by those who want to overemphasize the testing on more complex life forms. Our job is to do neither of these, it is to provide pertinent, accurate and contextually relevant information and allow readers to use it as they please. If they wish to use the data selectively then that is up to them. Rockpocket 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the point of graphs is to present data in an accessible form using graphics, thus I would use names only. I believe a link to the source is sufficient for those that want the exact numbers/percentages. However, there is nothing wrong with providing the numbers/percentages in a footnote either. Putting the numbers/precentages in the figure itself is redundant and defeats the purpose of a graph. Besides, we already have many numbers in the text. Rockpocket 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RP, if the data included tests on human prisoners, per my example above, would you include the humans as a slice and percentage of the pie that included rats and mice? Crum375 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Or if one scientist were killed by animal rights protesters, would he be included as the thinnest of slices on a pie chart showing incidents where protesters had confronted researchers? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crum, if I was presenting a figure about the frequency in which vertebrate species were used in non-voluntary scientific experimentation, yes I would. I don't see a problem with that at all. Its not a co-incidence that the more "important" or "complex" a species is from our POV, the less there are experimented on (again, non-voluntarily). That general trend is significant and important in understanding the rationale behind animal experimentation as a whole (in many countries scientists are legally obligated to use the "most primitive" species they can to address their scientific goal). Reporting this does nothing to minimize the importance of those animals that are used in lesser numbers, in fact, quite the opposite.

SV, absolutely. That is exactly how one would represent a frequency table of criminal acts of AR-activists. Infact, that is not a bad idea, since we have the Biteback data on types of direct action. Perhaps we could put that into an article somewhere. Rockpocket 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What about focusing on the real EU statistics on animal testing, rather than these rather strange hypothetical questions. The version 2 is now above. I renamed the "Artio and Perissodactyla group" - which include horses, donkeys, pigs, goats, sheep and cattle just as "farm animals" since this will be much clearer to the average reader than the original. I must say I still prefer version 1, but since you were concerned about combining those minor groups Crumb, I put them back in. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a practical difference. Using that chart, which equates the various species, will obscure the smaller numbers of the more complex life forms like primates, which tend to be overwhelmed by mice and rats in that format. Crum375 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the graph is supposed to tell you. The numbers of mice and rats do overwhelm the numbers of primates and other animals, so the it sounds like the graph does it's job well. I actually like the second one, Tim. Rockpocket 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if people insist on having a graph, then why not include all organisms tested, like bacteria, flies, nematodes, etc. Why only vertebrates? Who decides that cutoff? Have you ever petted an octopus? They are as cute and cuddly (and arguably as intelligent) as many pets. Of course, with bacteria, or even flies on the chart, the vertebrates would disappear. So clearly any cutoff is problematic, which means we need to supply numbers, not apples and mice comparisons. Crum375 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on principle, but we can't include all organisms tested because we do not have reliable data for those (scientists are not required to document the numbers of invertebrates used). Thus we can't supply numbers for the invertebrates either, so that remains a problem either way.

We draw the line where we have reliable data. The cut-off is artificial, but (almost) precisely around the vertebrate/invertebrate distinction. I say almost because, as you point out, octopuses are pretty unusual invertebrates (indeed, I had the privilege of doing some behavioural experiments with octopuses a few years ago and they truly are remarkable creatures). Accordingly, the UK passed an amendment essentially classifying Octopus vulgaris as a vertebrate for the purposes of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I don't know where that fits into this chart, perhaps they just left it out since the number is probably only a handful and it is unique to the UK. But it is an anomaly. Rockpocket 00:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem remains, that to include lower order species (if I can use that term), where the numbers are very large, in the same chart as higher order ones, will obscure the smaller number of the higher order ones. This is a problem because there are many people who feel that higher order animals are more prone to suffer under test conditions, and therefore are more important to focus on. But since, because of sheer numbers they become overwhelmed and obscured in a chart format, it ends up distracting the reader from seeing what many feel are the more important sectors. This is why I feel that using numbers alone is the fair and impartial way to present the information. Crum375 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You talk about "higher order" species (and I do appreciate what you mean), but that is such a subjective, wooly distinction as to be meaningless. It means what you want it to mean, and that would be different for each individual. For example, does an ape suffer significantly more than an Old World monkey than a New world monkey? Do all three suffer more than a dog, a cat, a mouse? Where do you draw the "higher order" line and why? Each individual would give a different answer, usually at the point the animal stops being "cute" in their opinion. So why should we make an arbitrary distinctions based on a subjective and POV criteria (i.e. what "some people feel")?

The very criticism you make is what, from an objective standpoint, its important to show. Primates, cats and dogs are overwhelmed by mice and rats in terms of numbers. People may not appreciate that from the fact that primates get a disproportionate amount of coverage. Its not the numbers that make primates an important part of the story, and rightly so, its the value we attribute them. Rockpocket 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with much of what you say. I was only using "lower order" as a shorthand. I agree that the amount of suffering of the different species is an unknown, and is not necessarily correlated to their size or complexity. But my point remains that these are different species and therefore to lump them in one pile, mice with primates, while excluding the invertebrates, is very misleading and arbitrary. Many people reading this article are concerned about the cost/benefit balance of animal testing (where cost is measured in those elusive units of "suffering"), and many people assume that more complex animals suffer more. Yet, those who presumably suffer more are overwhelmed when presented alongside the less complex creatures. By just arbitrarily adding, say, an estimated number of fruit flies used, the pie chart would totally change, obscuring the mammals. So we are back to what is the most neutral and straightforward way to present the numbers, skirting these contentious issues. Crum375 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately we can only report the data we have. The chart is clearly marked as the proportion of vertebrates used in experiments, which is what the article overwhelmingly concerns. Its not like we have chosen some arbitrary grouping, the legislative community have essentially decided that invertebrates don't count enough to bother even recording them and therefore vertebrates are the primary issue of concern of an article about animal testing. The chart accurately summarizes the comparative information we have about that subject, if numbers of one vertebrate species appears to overwhelms the others, then that is because one vertebrate species overwhelms the others in animal testing. The numbers don't lie, and this point of this chart is to illustrate the numbers.

If we are going to argue that it misleads by omission of invertebrates, then we may as well give and go home, since the entire article suffers from that, irrespective if whether we use, numbers, percentages or charts. You protests would be more understandable if we were discussing using this instead of numbers, but the entire section documents the numbers in detail. I really don't think an additional illustrative chart that provides the same information in a contextual format obscures anything, since nothing is being removed. Rockpocket 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that there are too camps here. One is disturbed by primate experiments, and the other is amazed at the staggering waste of rodents. 129.170.84.151 (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are going to convince one another. I believe the addition of a chart does not distract, obscure or overwhelm the information already there, but does add a different perspective on the information, thereby providing useful context. Therefore I have added version 2 with the text from version 1. I did this per WP:BRD, so if you find this version unacceptable, please do revert and we can use that to move forward, perhaps by seeking further comment. Rockpocket 05:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I support that idea, if people still object to us adding this information an article RfC would probably be appropriate, so we could gain more input from the community. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulatory section break

Tim, your patience is amazing and is an example to us all. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a case of extraordinary patience from one individual (not that Tim isn't a paragon of patience, I'm sure), its simply that there are two very different ways of approaching this subject, ideologically and practically, and it can take some discussion to reach a common understanding of both positions. Its to everyone's credit that they can do so while keeping cool heads, maintaining good faith, and being open to an appreciation of alternative POVs. While occasionally things may get a little testy, I am always quite impressed at how controlled the discussions are on this page, considering the controversy around the subject, and how compromise is often generated. I think this talk page, and all its major contributors, are a fine example to the project. Rockpocket 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Draize test

I'm concerned that the current description of the Draize test from the National Anti-Vivisection Society website may not be accurate. I found an article called "The Draize Eye Test and in vitro alternatives; a left-handed marriage?" that describes the test in detail. It states:

Exposure conditions in the Draize Test

What is not highlighted in the discussions so far, however, is surprisingly enough the conduct and course of the test itself, although several investigators have discussed the unrealistic exposure conditions of the Draize Eye Test, i.e., instillation in the conjunctival cul-de-sac of the rabbits eye, compared to potential human exposure (Freeberg et al., 1986 and Roggeband et al., 2000).

For most routine acute and repeat toxicity tests, standard exposure times and/or delivery of dosage (orally, intravenously, etc.) are well-defined. In the dermal irritation test, for example, the entire dosage is held by a patch onto the skin for an exact period of time. In the eye irritation test, however, neither of these well-defined conditions exists. For liquids, pastes and solids, it is impossible to estimate how much and for how long the test substance stays in contact with the eye. For aqueous, non-viscous formulations the standard instillation of 0.1 ml in the conjunctival cul-de-sac of the rabbit and the holding of the eye-lids for 1 s, results in a rapid removal of the material within seconds/minutes through blinking with the nictitating membrane (third eye-lid) and grooming by the rabbit.

This contrasts with the situation for sticky pastes for example, which cannot be removed that easily. The most dramatic variation in contact time and dosage occurs with solids. Even if applied as a 0.1 ml equivalent (the content of the cul-de-sac), the actual amount of a powder/solid that stays in contact with the eye is unpredictable. More importantly, the contact time may vary from a couple of minutes to 24 h, because rinsing the eye is not allowed before the 24-h reading (only recently changed to 1 h for solids in the 2002 update of OECD guideline no. 405).

Note that the animal's eye is only held closed for about one second and that blinking is not prevented. This fits the official OECD test guideline Guideline 405. Similarly in the article The Draize eye test. blinking is again specifically noted.

A solution can be instilled into the lower conjunctival sac or dropped directly onto the cornea. To avoid unnecessary discomfort, a topical anesthetic drug is sometimes instilled before the test agent.[123] Depending on the animal's response, the test substance may remain in contact with the eye, be blinked away, or be diluted by tearing.

Does anybody have any objection to me correcting this description? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you first say here what you'd like to write, to avoid reversions? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Eye irritation is usually measured using the Draize test. The protocol recommended by the OECD involves applying the test substance to the eye of an animal, usually an albino rabbit. The effects are then observed at intervals, and any damage or irritation graded. The OECD protocol states that the test should be halted and the animal killed if it shows continual and severe pain or distress, but less severe effects may be allowed to continue for days. The Draize test has been strongly criticised for being cruel, as well as being subjective, over-sensitive, and failing to reflect human exposures in the real world. Although no accepted in vitro alternatives exist, a modified forms of the Draize test called the low volume eye test may reduce suffering and provide more realistic results, but it has not yet replaced the original test. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There a very good review on this topic that has just been published this month - PMID 17701961

May I suggest combining the texts?

"Irritancy is usually measured using the Draize test, where a test substance is applied to an animal's eyes or skin, usually an albino rabbit. For Draize eye testing, the rabbits' heads are held in place, and clips used to hold their eyes open to prevent them from blinking away the test solution. The protocol recommended by the OECD involves observing the effects of the substance at intervals, and grading any damage or irritation. The protocol states that the test should be halted and the animal killed if there is continual and severe pain or distress, but lesser effects may be allowed to continue for days. The National Anti-Vivisection Society writes that the test compounds often leave the animals' eyes ulcerated and bleeding. The test has been criticized for being cruel, as well as subjective, over-sensitive, and failing to reflect human exposures in the real world. Although no accepted in vitro alternatives exist, a modified form of the Draize test called the low volume eye test may reduce suffering and provide more realistic results, but it has not yet replaced the original test."

Plus whatever refs are needed for the new information (but please, no citation templates).

If there is a discrepancy between the sources on the blinking isssue, we'll have to look into it further. There are likely to be neutral(ish) secondary sources around for an issue like that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't state that clips hold animals' eyes open if the reliable sources that deal with this specific topic refute this assertion. The National Anti-Vivisection Society website has no named authors and has no clear editorial process - it is a questionable source. The claims made by this source are in clear contradiction of the more reliable secondary sources that have named authors and have been published in peer-reviewed journals with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We would need to find a reliable source to support such a claim. I have removed the questionable material for now, until we can come to consensus on replacement. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking around for a source about the clips. So far as I can tell, the sources who mention it all rely on Peter Singer's 1975 version of Animal Liberation, a claim that is not in his updated version, so it may be outdated. However, I'm not done looking yet. In the course of looking around, I've found some better descriptions of the test, which we might want to use, including a photograph showing a dog used alongside the rabbits. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at some images of Draize testing and couldn't see anything that looked like clips near the animals' eyes - but that's original research I know! Some of the sources I have read mention that the test was "standardised" in the mid 1980s, so perhaps that did refer to an older version of the test. How about removing that statement and using the Humane Society of the United States as a more notable and reliable source of criticism? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Irritancy is usually measured using the Draize test, where a test substance is applied to an animal's eyes or skin, usually an albino rabbit. For Draize eye testing, the protocol recommended by the OECD involves observing the effects of the substance at intervals and grading any damage or irritation, but that the test should be halted and the animal killed if there is "continual and severe pain or distress". The Humane Society of the United States writes that the procedure can cause redness, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or even blindness. The test has also been criticized by scientists for being cruel and inaccurate, since it is subjective, over-sensitive, and fails to reflect human exposures in the real world. Although no accepted in vitro alternatives exist, a modified form of the Draize test called the low volume eye test may reduce suffering and provide more realistic results, but it has not yet replaced the original test."

That would be fine with me, though I'd like to be able to tweak it around a little with some of the stuff I've found (good sources). But I may not do it, or I may not do it soon, so I'm fine with you inserting what you have. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Will do. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)