Talk:Animal testing/Archive 1

Merge with vivisection

I think that this content should be merged into the article on vivisection. Comments? Rosemary Amey 21:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

No Animal testing is the correct term I'm going to make some edits to this article which is going to change it somewhatGeni 13:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't care which it's called, I'm just saying it should be one article rather than two. Rosemary Amey 01:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

vivisection refers to a specific practice.. Animal testing is whole area. While the vivisection article could do with a heavy change of focus it has a right to exist (the sections on history and what the practice directly involves belong there I tend to feel that most of the ethical arguments are dealing with the general subject of animal testing so should be in their article).Geni 20:19, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I fixed a ton of spelling and grammatical errors (please spellcheck, people), but I have no idea what they are trying to say in the Efficacy Studies section...if you can tell, please fix it.--Hereticam

Tried to make it clearer. (By the way, you can quickly sign your name and the date by typing four tildes (~) together.) Rosemary Amey 01:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

not only medical

i think this page also should deal with the testing of cosmetics on animals - i cant deal wit hit as i have a major POV problem with it and it'll show, but anoyone else is welcom to try it and i can chek it or whatever if wanted/needed. Selphie 09:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At short notice I can't think of any country where this practice is still carried out.Geni 09:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

its still carried out all over the world......people just like to keep it hush-hush as they know it causes major uproar. next time you go buy shampoo, soap or somesuch just have a look on the back of a few different brands, some say theyre not tested on animals (which is often a lie - either in part or wholly) and some dont. look it up on google or yahoo for details or i can give you exapmles of one type of testing if you really want. Selphie 10:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) **

Then put in the article. Just make sure you can support any claims you make.Geni 10:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i'll do some research first........cos obviously im gonna use facts and list both sides of the arguement. Selphie 10:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LD50

The United States and Japan are frequently criticised for their insistence on animal testing. As of 2004, both Japan and the US FDA require the results of an LD50 toxicity test on any new substance's datasheet.

What is the source for this?Geni 11:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The FDA appear not to promote the LD50, e.g. [1] [2]. See also [3]. This needs more research into the various laws.

Kyz's comment in the history

You may well be right Kyz but I'm still unhappy with it because "most people", as you say, is an undocumented, unquantified group and I don't see the evidence to target animal rights activists in this section of the article. Maybe that part of the paragraph should be moved to the "controversy" section of the page?

(user:Wayland)

I agree with moving the sentence to the controversy section. I have also mentioned that animal welfare activists may also mis-label all animal testing as vivisection. The statement states that the term may be used, it does not accuse all AR/AW activists of using the term (for example, the RSPCA don't; the BUAV do). Kyz 10:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge?

Should this article be merged with animal model? I realize that it's not exactly the same thing, but the articles could cover some of the same ground. I was also considering a redirect from animal research, but then I considered that animal research entails much more than drug/product testing. Any ideas what could be done? Sayeth 22:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Animal Experiments should point to Animal Testing

When you search for "animal experiments", no matches are found. Shouldn't that search just redirect to the "animal testing" page?

Mad Scientists

'Scientists and technicians involved in animal testing are particularly eager to shake off the image of being "mad scientists" who "torture animals for the sake of it".'

I changed this to ' Scientists and technicians involved in animal testing are of course particularly eager to shake off the image of being "mad scientists" who "torture animals for the sake of it", which has come about after several high priority laboratory raids have discovered video evidence of sadistic behaviour.' It was reverted. The statement is true; videos such as "Countryside Undercover", "Unecessary Fuss", "Britches", the "Silver Spring Monkey" case and the recent Covance Undercover video have all shown staff taking pleasure in tormenting and making fun of lab animals. Almost every time there is a lab raid or undercover investigation sadistic behaviour comes to light. Why was it deleted? Lack of references? If I reference it will it be left in place? Since the person who reverted this has not replied, I have changed it back again, with referenced examples this time. I have also added a few other animal rights campaigners' claims, with references.

You can of course prove that the mad scientist image do not predate the films?Geni 14:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, because it obviously does. I purposefully used more recent examples, as they back up the current "mad scientist" image of those involved in animal experiments. If I'd used older examples then it would be claimed that "mad scientist" behaviour no longer occurs. If I add more examples then we will have a huge long list of "mad scientist" behaviour - is this really necessary? The article is not about animal experiment exposes. In my opinion, the original sentence ("Scientists and technicians involved in animal testing are particularly eager to shake off the image of being "mad scientists" who "torture animals for the sake of it") is not necessary anyway. It is POV. Where is the evidence that these people do have an image of beings "mad scientists who torture animals for the sake of it" that they are "eager to shake off"? Feel free to delete that sentence and my examples if you like. But if the sentence remains then so should the examples, to balance it out.

Vivisection vs Animal Testing

I have also altered the comments about the term "vivisection", as before it was implied that only animal rights campaigners refer to animal experiments as vivisection, in an attempt to show the practice in a negative light. This was not NPOV, and it was unreferenced. In fact, the term vivisection now seems to be an acceptable way to describe all animal experiments. For example, "The American Encycloapaedia" - "Vivisection: the term is applied to all kinds of experimentation on animals whether or not cuttig is involved", "Merrian-Webster Dictionary" - "Broadly, any form of animal experimentation, especially if considered to cause distress to the subject", "Blakistons New Gold medical dictionary" - "Vivisectionist: he who practices and defends animal experimentation", www.dictionary.com - "The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research." , www.dictionary.co.uk - "the cutting up or other use of living animals in tests which are intended to increase human knowledge of human diseases and the effects of using particular drugs" If most dictionaries describe vivisection as any animal experiments, whether or not the invlve cutting or surgery, then perhaps the pages should be merged after all?

No. vivisection Is an a 1 form of animal experimentation it would not be a good word to describe say behaverial experiments on ratsGeni 14:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is your POV, but surely we should go with dictionary definitions on this? --83.216.154.56 17:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why? I quick search of ISI Web of knowlage supports my positionGeni 17:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I’m not sure what the WIkipedia policy/ guidelines are for this kind of situation. I’ve looked around but can’t find any. For me, it makes sense to go the definition in most dictionaries/ the most respected dictionaries. It also makes sense to merge the pages because:

1. Many people use “vivisection” to refer to all animal experiments. They will search for “vivisection” and not get the information they are looking for. Or they will get the wrong impression that “vivisection” can only be correctly used to refer to cutting animals. However, since I’ve added a couple of lines at the top of both articles about the term, which contains links to the other appropriate page, this shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

2. Even if you think that vivisection is only one form of animal experiment, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs its own page. Other kinds of animal experiments do not have their own pages (such as a “toxicity” page, a “burning” page, a “drowning” page, a “psychology” page etc), because these can all be covered under “animal experiments”. Vivisection itself can be split up into different types of surgery/ cutting, each with their own page, but this is not necessary. In the same way I do not believe that it is necessary to split up “vivisection” from “animal testing”. It is, after all, a form of animal testing.

3. There is a lot of overlap between cutting animals and other kinds of experiments. For example, psychology experiments may consist of first putting electrodes in the animal’s brain so that brain activity can be monitored or altered; and drug testing may first involve cutting the animal in order to simulate a wound before the drug is administered.

4. The “vivisection” page seems to have very little essential information. Most of it is already covered by “animal testing” and the rest can easily be incorporated into it. If we delete everything from “vivisection” that is already covered by animal experiments”, we end up with very little.

The information in “vivisection” not covered by “animal experiments” is that on human vivisection. This could either be covered on “animal experiments” in its own section (after all, humans are animals too) or a new page such as “experiments on humans” could be created.

What are your thoughts on this? If you still think the pages should be separate, what are your arguments for this? --83.216.154.56 19:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV comment about cosmtic testing

I'm removing the sentence "In terms of being worth the sacrifice of animals and the pain inflicted on them before they are killed, cosmetics are at the opposite end of the scale from cancer treatments". This sentence implies that cancer experiments = good, cosmetic experiments = bad - very POV. How do you know that cancer experiments are more "worth" the sacrifice? Only if you think that it is acceptable to harm and kill animals to treat human illnesses (POV), and that cancer research on animals always produce results that make them "worth" the sacrifice (POV). Why the random comparison with cancer treatments anyway? Cancer treatments have nothing to do with cosmetics, why bring them up? --Raye 13:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your edits, Raye. SlimVirgin 01:29, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I removed the picture of a dog. does anyone at all know where the image used in this page came from? The uploader is gone and it looks like it could be a copyvio. Also, what besides the uploader's word do we have in the way of verification on its subject?! It could very well be merely an administration of anesthesia to the dog and not a toxic industrial gas test. Why would the technicians be wearing hair nets for a gas toxicity test and no personal protective equipment to prevent breathing the toxic gas!?--Deglr6328 06:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, i've put the picture back. Reason 1: at least some picture is necessary, if this one is copyvio, let the copyright owner step up, i will look for a better one for now though. Reason 2: what did you expect the original poster to say "no, this is the correct title"? I doublt that it can actually be proven with the constraints of wikipedia. Reason 3: if you want to remove the pic, let's look for something better to replace it with. Beta m (talk)

How would the copyright owner "step up"? Thats rather absurd, the image could come from virtually anywhere. They would have to be regularly searching the entire internet for illegetimate use of their picture!! No, what I expected was for the person who uploaded it and put it here to provide a source for the thing so it can be verified. Instead we got no response after months of waitnig. I strongly suspect that the image is not even of what the uploader claimed. Let's leave it OUT of the article and find a replacement. This article went for 2 years without a photo, it'll be fine without one for the next few days while we find a better one that CAN be verified and used here.--Deglr6328 08:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to find another replacement, and not get into the revert war with you. I am just amused how fast people are to police themselves, even when police is not around... q;-) Beta m (talk)

I've left a note at Image:25 DGINH.JPG. SlimVirgin 14:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

By leaving the uncreated (both source and description) picture in you completely destroy the credibility of your article and it shows you have a large bias. If you were to research other forms of animal experimentation you may come to the realization that even free ranging animals can be used in experiments without ever touching or disturbing the animal (i.e. fecal collections of ungulates for diet composition determination) is this not animal experimentation.

no it just shows that we assume good faith and tend to act slowly when we are not certain of things.Geni 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about being so slow to deal with that. I couldn't find a source for the image, then I'm afraid I forgot about it. My apologies. I've deleted it from the page as there's no indication where it came from, so we don't have a source for claiming it's toxic gas that's being tested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why are the two pictures both of monkeys when everyone knows that the vast majority of animals in research are mice?

How about basic research?

How about animal experiments that are carried out in basic life science research like genetics or immunology? Should there be a section about those, too? R.C.B. 20:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably.Geni 22:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Image

I found a new image to replace the dog, and the source and authenticity of this one are verified. I also removed the NPOV tag as it was placed there on June 6 by a user with only ten edits, Rollie (talk · contribs), and no user or talk page, who hasn't been back since. Hope that's okay. If anyone disagrees, feel free to put it back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should have an image of a rat or a fruit fly instead, since they are used much more often in biological research. Primates are not used nearly as often.Gary 01:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

POV

Some POV errors. I'm attached to the subject so I can't edit the main page.

"They also claim that the idea of "alternatives to animal experiments" is meaningless. It is impossible to find a technique that produces the same results as animal experiments, they argue, because, as one ex-animal tester put it, "it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is .. more deceptive and misleading than vivisection" (Croce 1991, p. 21)."

Publishing someone else's POV still makes it POV. There is no evidence for his/her claim provided. Also the opposing view point is not represented; for instance the title 'Abuses' hasn't got a corresponding title 'Uses'.

"However, those who argue that animal experiments are inherently unscientific say that these facilities are simply there to perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are necessary for human health, and to reassure the public that steps are being taken to find "alternatives" to what seems to many people to be an abhorrent practice."

This kind of POV-dancing is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Attributing a PoV to an imaginary person ("... those who argue...") still makes it PoV. 'Many people' is unquantifiable and unsupported. The two links following the statement are highly biased.

"Many people feel it is immoral to cause harm or death to animals for the sake of human vanity."

Again, another unquantified unsupported use of the phrase 'many people'.

I think this is enough to go on. Why has this very PoV article not been re-edited by someone with a NPoV? It's terribly and obviously biased. Not to demean the effort of the original author, or their beliefs, but WP isn't the place. The attempt is appreciated, and I understand this issue is very emotive and controversial. If this article is left untouched for an extended period of time, I shall try to bring a more NPoV slant to the article.

Countries + Current Legislation

I was wondering is somebody could come with a list of countries + states that have banned comestic testing or has restrictions on it along with countries that have banned it from happening. I only know so far the UK has banned animal testing from being performed in their country. KerryJones

Hi Kerry, well, you could do it. Welcome to Wikipedia!  ;-) It would be a useful list to have, though a short one if you stick to who has banned it, but if you were to expand it to include descriptions of the various restrictions, who does and doesn't require the LD50 test and so on, that would make it much more extensive. Quite a lot of work though. By the way, to sign your posts, please type four tildes, like this ~~~~ See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

hehe, well i'm afraid it'll be awhile before I get writing an article. I'm still in the processo of learning to operate wikipedia. :)

Only cosmetic animal testing, I assume, as I know for sure that clincal animal testing is still neccessarily undertaken in the UK.

???

When did animalt testing begin?

     Depends on what you call animal testing.  I'm sure little kids have been pulling limbs off insects forever and lots of hunter-gatherers used animals in ritual sacrifice way back in the day.  The Greeks were probably the first to have something we'd call "science", and I am 99% sure they did some dissecting of things, so depending on where you draw the line, I'd say any one of those were the first. 69.205.169.113 18:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, Expert needed

I've added an NPOV to the top of the article. I did not change anything else. I feel that this article is so heavily biased that it would be best to just delete it and start over. Animal research provides us with biological and medical information that can be obtained in no other way, and this article fails to address this.--Gary2863 23:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article is completely messed up. Even other very controversial topics like abortion and nuclear power are organised by first exlaining what they are, and then discussing ethics. I think the article should start by explaining what animal testing IS, WHY it is carried out, what scientific results can / cannot be obtained from it, and THEN move on to discuss the ethical aspects of the question. (AnAnonymousGuy)

I just added the "Expert" tag: apart from the NPOV issue, a discussion of the scientific aspects is badly needed.(AnAnonymousGuy)

did my best

I tried to respond to whatever issues weren't addressed yet in the discussion. Rather than eliminating biased statements, I tried to provide the alternative perspective as close to it as possible. What scientific aspects were you hoping to see discussed?

Attn SlimVirgin

hi, I'm a newbie at Wikipedia, and am not trying to tread on anyone's toes - just wanted to say why I took out the sentence that you put straight back in... basically, the two references given to support that statement are from organisations that do not have good reputations for sound, unbiased comments on the scientific validity of animal research (see AMA's own entry on Wikipedia). Many of the examples they use are misleading and based on misunderstood science (ie the one most frequently cited by these organisations is that animal research failed to predict the effect of thalidomide - in fact tests on pregnant animals were only done AFTER the effects in humans became apparent, and they showed the same effect. It was the thalidomide tragedy that led to animal research becoming mandatory).

I don't see a problem with the comment if there's a recognised scientific body to reference... but I can't think of one to replace the two dubious ones there. Under Wikipedia's rules, a statement shouldn't be there without a sound reference... this is why I took it out.

There have been three independent reviews (involving scientists - not all of whom conduct animal research, animal welfare experts etc) of the scientific validity of animal testing, and every one of them has found that in carefully considered cases, animal research can provide useful, scientifically valid information - so it seems that careful consideration by independent bodies with access to all the information have no questions about the role of properly conducted animal research, and are more likely to be better sources than AMA and PeTA.

Hope this helps!

In case you want to reference them, the reviews are the House of Lords 'Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures' (2001-2) Animal Procedures Committee 'Review of Cost-Benefit Assessment in the Use of Animals in Research' (2003) Nuffield Council on Bioethics 'The ethics of research using animals' (2005)