Talk:Animal testing/Archive 2

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

Explanation for my edits

I moved this back to Animal testing, because that's the more common expression and the one used by the industry: animal testing gets 1,800,000 hits on Google, and animal experimentation gets 483,000. I also removed the expert tag because it was added by an anonymous IP address. I've left the NPOV tag up for now, but the editor who added it needs to make suggestions that are actionable within our policies for how it could be improved, or else the tag isn't being used correctly. I'd say the problem with this article isn't so much POV, as poor writing, poor organization, and a lack of facts from good sources on both sides.

If we're basing the title on Google hits, then animal research gets 115,000,000 hits. Animal testing may be a common expression, but is just safety tests (about 15% of all animal research according to UK Home Office figures [1]) so is misleading. 82.6.117.213 14:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I also removed this paragraph: "Animal testing has been used to help treat rabies, smallpox, anthrax, congenital heart diseases, rickets, diabetes, tetanus, rheumatoid arthritis, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, mood disorders, rubella, measles and leprosy. The models have been used to make surgeries safer by testing anesthestics and anti-rejection drugs as well as developing techniques in cardiac bypass and laproscopic surgery. Animal models have the most scientific background and the highest likelihood of assisting in new treatments for cancer, HIV, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and other terminal illnesses that are currently without any cure."

I removed it because it's unsourced, and given the controversy that this page is in part about, we can't just state "animal testing has been used to help treat x, y, and z," without producing sources showing that it really did "help to treat" those diseases. The counter-argument is that animal testing does not always further research into diseases. So a source would need to be produced to show for each illness that animal testing had, in fact, advanced research into treatment options for that illness. Also, it wasn't clear what was meant by "[a]nimal models have the most scientific background." If it was meant to say that using animal models is good science, then again, this is begging the question: many scientists say it is, some say it isn't, so the view would have to be attributed to a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Eeeek, you are absolutely right. I shuffled around the links that were scattered across the page and forgot to figure out the footnote thingie. I see how the "background" statement turned out ambiguous. What I was really trying to say is that it's the most "tried and true" method, so it has a substantial background as something that has worked in a lot of situations in the past. Does that make sense? Can you think of a better way to phrase it? 69.205.169.113 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi 69, if you re-add the material, please be sure to add sources within the paragraph that back up what you're saying; link to them if they're online, or use a footnote or author-date reference if they're not.

I see what you're saying, but the problem is that not everyone agrees with it, so we can't state it as a fact. The best thing is to find an authoritative source who says it, and either quote them, or attribute the view to them, and cite the source after it. Some light reading: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ;-D Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Much thanks, these links are great! Let me know what you think of the current incarnation of the utility paragraph. Also a question about citing: suppose, just you know, hypothetically, that I know a lot about keratinocytes because my cell biology professor was the first person to successfully culture them in vitro. My source is definitely not published (i.e., my lecture notes), but I think it still constitutes a reliable source. What do you think?69.205.169.113 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, the source you linked to [2] doesn't say anything that supports your edit. You'll have to find an authoritative source, and write: "According to X," and then repeat what X has said, either as a direct quote, or paraphrasing (but sticking closely to what they said without elaborating).

Another stupid goof. Try it now.

Regarding your lecture notes, I'm afraid they don't constitute a reliable source unless they're published by a credible publisher. We only publish material that has already been published elsewhere: the criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We don't say X is true, and Y is false, unless it's a very straightforward thing like 2 +2 = 4, or that the sun rose this morning. Otherwise, we say "A says that X is true," then we provide information about where A said this so that other readers and editors can check that we're attributing the claim correctly. Hope this helps. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you should know better than removing "the expert tag because it was added by an anonymous IP address." Doing so is against the very spirit of wikipedia. Nowhere in the guidelines under "pages needing attention" does it say that you must be a registered user to add the expert tag, it only says that you should state the concise reason for adding the tag, as I have. While I can see that this article has improved a bit after the NPOV and expert tags have been added, it still needs attention for the reason I stated earlier: that this article, even if very controversial, should be structured so that it explains in details what animal testing is and how it works/does not work (it needs an expert), and then it should move on to discuss and/or address the critiques (it is still POV).(AnAnonymousGuy)

new additions to the opponents section

"The animal-testing industry is a multi-million dollar concern. Advocates of testing may argue that their interests are scientific, but they are just as often commercial.
Most animal testing is conducted for non-medical reasons
Even with medical and non-commercial research, tests are often conducted to produce academic papers in order to acquire a degree, tenure, or more funding, and not because the research was otherwise beneficial
Animal testing is bad science and reaps either few benefits or none
The suffering of the animals is excessive in relation to whatever benefits may be reaped
Animal testing, especially for non-medical substances, is excessive and unnecessary
Animal testing is regarded by opponents as bad science because:
Animals are not effective models
Results from animals can be misleading
Many drugs have dangerous side-effects that were not predicted by animal models
Some drugs have exactly the opposite effect on human and non-human animals; for example, morphine and aspirin
The conditions in which the tests are carried out may undermine the results, because of the stress the environment causes to the animals
Animal liberationists further argue that, even if animal testing did reap benefits to human beings, these could not outweigh the suffering of the animals"

None of these are cited.

Are we: a) trying to represent the views that may be put forth by opponents, whether they are justified by data or not

or

b) supplying actual data regarding these points

For instance: When it says that "Some drugs have exactly the opposite effect on human and non-human animals; for example, morphine and aspirin", it is a) TRUE that this argument is often put forth, but b) FALSE that morphine and aspirin have opposite effects.

How shall we deal with this?69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, first, could you sign your posts, please? It gets hard to read and archive talk page with unsigned posts. You can add a sig and date/time by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.

As for the cites: different editors approach these types of sections differently. Because it's a pro and anti section, some feel it's okay to have broad characterizations of each position with citations. Others feel citations should always be provided. I tend toward the latter because of, as you say, the possibility of factual error, so I'll try to find references for each point I added, and if I can't, I'll remove it. Regarding morphine and aspirin, I was very tired when I wrote that and may have made a typo. I took it from a film I was watching, so I'll find a source, correct the drug (if it was a typo), or remove it.

I removed the utility section again, but then I saw you had added a different link, so I'll take a look at that. I'm wondering whether it should be a stand-alone section now that we have this pro and anti-section. Does it imbalance things a little?

It's good to see this page getting some work, though, especially by someone who cares about using good sources, so thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, it's signed now. Still getting the hang of this stuff. The reason I included the "utility" section was in response to the comment that the "abuse" section made the article imbalanced. Upon further consideration, though, I think "abuse" might be a tangential issue that should be moved to a separate page--it's not an integral component of animal testing and people who defend animal testing don't defend abuse.

As far as the individual points, I worry that even with citations, some points might not be justified. The following comment is very not NPOV, so I apologize, but here goes: I have found that very many anti-animal testing sites have manipulated information and taken it out of context so that it's no longer useful. I'll go back to the aspirin/morphine example just for the sake of consistency--this example has been cited very often in anti-animal testing literature, but the problem is that it's not true. (I have read the studies they come from, and the effects they're referring to happen at doses about 500x what's administered to humans.) So I guess we're back to the question of verifiability v. truth. Does verifiability still win? 69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, verifiability wins over truth. We only publish what has already been published by credible sources.

It may be your interpretation that the morphine studies are misleading, but it's the view of scientists who've gone on the record (if I can ever find them) that the studies are not misleading, and so that's what we publish. If you can find sources saying the opponents' analysis is wrong, then we can put that in the pro section.

As for the abuse section, I'd say it's perhaps the most central issue, not tangential. There's no indication that these are isolated cases, and the organizations that run and pay for the facilities know it goes on. In fact the entire set-up of the facilities is regarded by opponents as abusive (the design of the labs, size of cages, noise levels, lack of enrichment, lack of sunlight, lack of companionship, the way the animals are acquired, the qualifications of staff employed to look after them), which is in part why there's so much opposition to animal testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I say abuse is tangential to the topic of "Animal testing" is because the purpose of animal testing is to provide the most reliable data with the fewest confounds, and abuse is a confound in and of itself. I think the factors you bring up are absolutely concerns, but the factors currently in the abuse section (simulating sex, dancing to pop music, live dissection) are absolutely not integral to the scientific process. These things are at the heart of the "Animal abuse" discussion, but I maintain, are not really the point of animal testing.69.205.169.113 00:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. But I'd argue that's just one POV. Another POV might say it's a completely unscientific and wrong-headed endeavour, and that the conditions the animals are housed in are part of the reason it's unscientific (quite apart from the argument that animal models of disease are unlike real disease in human beings), because the stress the animals are under may affect certain results. The low wages and poor qualifications of staff are also part of the problem, and the effects of this are seen in reports of cruelty, and allegations that test results are fabricated or that data is collected carelessly. And so you might argue that we should discuss animal testing in terms of the process of scientific discovery, but you may in fact be discussing some ideal, Platonic form of that process, one which never or rarely takes place, because of all of the above. If even Cambridge University, which is regarded as a center of excellence, is leaving monkeys unattended and without care for 15 hours with their brains exposed, because staff only work nine to five, and then is using those animals in an experiment, I'd say that's evidence of a widespread failure within the scientific community to understand the scientific methods they say they're employing. If it happens even there in programs set up to research medical issues, I hate to imagine the carelessness that might be found when, say, HLS is doing commercial testing on behalf of some cosmetics company. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

For all these reasons, I think it would be inherently POV to separate off any part of the process, and say of it: "This is animal testing. Everything else is secondary."

I agree with what you're saying, but I think the problem is this: some of the matters are fact, and some of the matters are debatable.

FACT: the point of animal testing is to further scientific knowledge. DEBATE: animal testing can't further scientific knowledge. FACT: the people who do animal testing are scientists DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are intrinsically abusers FACT: the people who do animal testing have an interest in good science DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are careless and cannot perform good science

Do you see what I'm getting at? There's a difference between the intentions and the ends of animal science, that much is certain. But I think it's important to clarify between fact and debate. To me, the best way to do that was to allow the "abuse" section to remain in there and add in the "utility" section to balance it out.

Even if abuse is absolutely inescapable in animal testing--which is NOT certain--it is still not the goal of any scientist.

Do you think this is a situation where we could request comments?128.226.37.139 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, crap, this is "69.205.169.113" from a different IP address.

Sorry to be so slow to reply, but I've only just noticed your post.

I take issue with some of your points, as follows:

"FACT: the point of animal testing is to further scientific knowledge. DEBATE: animal testing can't further scientific knowledge."

No, it's not as simple as that and I'd argue you're taking a very rosy view of it, one that isn't reflected in the reality of the testing industry. The point of some animal testing (and some of the most objectionable testing) is to "advance knowledge". I don't know what percentage could be construed as this (but I'm sure we can find out), and I don't know how you're defining "knowledge." One well-known set of experiments designed to "advance knowledge" involved separating baby monkeys from their mothers at birth and hanging them upside down and alone in the dark for a very long period: I forget how long but I'll go and look it up. "Knowledge" gained: baby monkeys who are hanged alone upside down in the dark become mentally ill. So the opposite side is not simply that animals can't further scientific knowledge. It's also that a lot of what passes as scientific knowledge isn't "scentific" and isn't "knowledge" in any meaningful sense, and yet millions of animals are experiments on every year in the advancement of it, but because of the secrecy involved, it's impossible to say with certainty how many were experimented on in each type of experiment.

By all means, send me the article you got that from.

It's a very famous experiment, but I only have books here referring to it. I'll give more details of it later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Without seeing it, I am willing to make some hypothetical suggestions about it: (1) in a lot of species, baby monkeys cling to their mother's stomach as the mom walks around, so hanging upside down is not nearly as unpleasant for them as it is for human beings. (2) if the room was dark, and they were separated from their mothers, maybe the study was looking at the relationship between attachment and visual perception. Maybe they were looking at perception and found the mother to be a confound. Maybe they were looking at attachment and found sight distracting.

No, the intention was to make it unpleasant. It was a sensory- and maternal-deprivation experiment. And what was obvious would happen happened. The monkeys became mentally ill. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, just because the intent of a study isn't immediately obvious doesn't mean it's a) not scientific or b) not resulting in knowledge

Again, I don't know how you're using scentific or knowledge. The above was the first, and resulted in what could arguably be called the second, but who (other than the man receiving the grant) could possibly call it useful or justified? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So since you wanted definitions:

Main Entry: knowl·edge Pronunciation: 'nä-lij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen

2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned 4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind b archaic : a branch of learning

Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

You'll have to go beyond dictionary definitions for something like this. The above are all circular anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"FACT: the people who do animal testing are scientists. DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are intrinsically abusers"

Again, no, this is too simplistic, and you don't say what you mean by "scientists". The people who conduct animal tests are technicians and students. The people in charge of the medical and university studies don't spend their days in the lab. The scientists who develop vanilla-scented soap that floats in the bath don't conduct the toxicology tests. Opponents of animal testing argue that a large percentage of the people who do conduct them are abusers: they were either made that way because of the unpleasant working conditions, or they applied for the position in the first place because they were insensitive to animal suffering.

Main Entry: sci·en·tist Pronunciation: 'sI-&n-tist Function: noun Etymology: Latin scientia

1 : a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator

I really don't think I'm going out on a limb with my use of these words.

You still haven't said what you meant. Are you calling the technicians and students who carry out the actual animal testing "scientists"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"FACT: the people who do animal testing have an interest in good science. DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are careless and cannot perform good science"

You can't state the former as a "fact." How do you know this? First, as I argued above, the people who carry out animal testing are not invariably the ones who base their studies on it. And secondly, even confining ourselves to the more respectable end of animal testing (medical, university), a huge percentage of studies are conducted in order to win research grants or gain tenure for someone, not because the "science" is in and of itself important or of interest. So yes, the debate is in part about whether they are careless, and can perform "good science" (which I notice you're not defining), but it's also more fundamentally about whether "good science" is even the issue when it comes to much of the testing that goes on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that it is within the realm of conceivable possibilities that:

1. A person might intentionally want to abuse animals

2. That person might study something completely useless and call it science

3. A university would embrace this useless faux-science and grant the person tenure

4. Someone would grant lots of money to study the faux-science

5. The person would take the money and tenure and use them to kill, torture, and maim lots of animals and call it "research"

6. This research would produce no useable results, yet it would still be published in peer-reviewed journals

7. The faux-scientist would maintain his tenure and funding and continue abusing animals indefinitely

But this situation is so unlikely that I don't understand why it should be considered "neutral".

I can only assume you have no academic or professional experience in this area, because a great deal of the above is commonplace. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We could put up a Request for Comments as you suggested. What would you like it to say? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the request should be twofold.

First, my initial question was whether we are trying to represent all views, even when they contradict data, OR are we trying to actually supply facts and figures that are useful to both sides?

I'm not sure what you mean. We're here to represent all views, except tiny-minority ones.

Second, I think we should have some more perspectives on what it means to be neutral in this situation. Is it neutral to say that animal testing has the intention of advancing knowledge/gathering data/pursuing science? I understand that there is a debate about whether or not animal testing is ethical. But I don't think an actual debate exists over WHY people do animal testing, except maybe in an extreme minority. This point specifically is what I'm most interested in hearing feedback about. -"69.205.169.113"

Perhaps it would help if you were to read our editorial policies. Then you'd see what we're aiming for, and then you could formulate a neutral RfC. It isn't neutral to say that "animal testing has the intention of advancing knowledge/gathering data/pursuing science." You could say that, according to X, it does, and then quote that person or group. But you can't write it so that Wikipedia is saying it. The relevant policies are: Wikipedia:No original research (which is what your sentence above would violate), Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (which your sentence would violate), and Wikipedia:Verifiability (which your sentence would violate). Also, a useful guideline is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you only have time to read one, choose the one about no original research, because it incorporates the others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the editorial policies. Using words in a way that's consistent with their dictionary definition IS a NPOV, is NOT original research, and IS verifiable.

It is not fair for you to presume that you know the intentions of scientists better than the scientists themselves. It is not acceptable to suggest that the institution of science as a whole is useless, a conspiracy, or both. I understand the necessity of including minority and flat earth perspectives, but as the article stands these views dominate. The one paragraph I wrote with the useful outcomes of animal testing was deleted two or three times. That's not neutral. Enough is enough.

Also your comment about my lack of academic and professional experience was a personal attack, and it was incorrect. Since you brought it up, I will correct you, but please don't take this as an invitation to try to "out-qualify" me by bringing up your own experience. The first lab I worked in used animal models to study the cerebellum's role in learning and memory (this was later used to study Alzheimer's Disease). The lab I work in now uses animal models to study differential effects of alcohol on adolescents and adults.

I would have expected better from an admin.69.205.174.23 18:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Details about the monkey experiment below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

New intro

I rewrote the intro, largely using a UK government report as a source, which I've referenced as a couple of embedded links. I also removed the "expert" tag, because I don't know what would count as an expert in an area like this, so the tag didn't make much sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a list of medical treatments that came out of animal research to follow up the 100 million killed and it's gone? What gives? How is that neutral? I don't like the 100 million dead line, don't think it's at all neutral, but in the interest of maintaining neutrality I simply followed it up with another statement of fact. Hello? -"69.205.169.113"

Sorry, I didn't see what you added. Can you say where it is, and what don't you like about the figure of 100 million? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it either. It's a gross overestimate that is not based on any hard facts. I wrote this earlier, a little further down in the discussion: "I also think the BUAV estimate for world-wide use is an overestimate. BUAV is neither a credible nor a neutral source. Others estimate the number to be about half that, ie 50 million. If I can find a reference I'll add it in. 82.6.117.213 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)" 82.6.117.213 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well of despair

To the anon IP: you asked for details of the famous experiment where monkeys were hanged upside down. It was conducted in the 70s by Harry Harlow and Stephen Suomi. They took six-week-old rhesus monkeys, and placed them upside down in vertical-shaped stainless steel containers for between 45 days and two years. The aim was to produce what they called a "well of despair" to cause depression in the monkeys. Photographs of the chambers are here. [3] [4] [5] They were fed through a grid at the bottom. When they emerged, they were psychotic, and never recovered. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ideas!

It seems to me that this article focuses heavily on abuses committed against animals in the name of research. Because the article is about animal testing, maybe it would be a good idea to include more types of research involving animals, abusive or otherwise. This could include genetic engineering, developmental and embryological research, psychological experiments, and so on. I feel that the section on these subjects should be expanded - right now, in the "Types of Experiment" section, only toxicology tests are included, though the article describes other types of testing in later sections. Those sections should be rearranged so that they aren't sandwiched between blocks of text all about abuse and how it can be prevented. They seem kind of disconnected from the "Types of Experiment" section.

The picture of the rabbit can stay, since it helps describe the Draize test, but I think the picture of the rat undergoing an LD50 test can be removed, since just looking at the picture doesn't tell much. I think it is mislabelled as a mouse as well. At the very least, it is in the wrong section.

We could then have a brief section that says that there is a lot of controversy and opposition to animal testing, with a link to another article like Cruelty to animals or Vivisection and experimentation debate. Then a lot of the abuses presently described in the Animal Testing article could be added to one of those articles. Is it really necessary to include PETA and BUAV's work in exposing Huntingdon Life Sciences and Convance in this article? It seems to me like it would better serve the reader to treat animal abuse in a general sense here, and then have the specific offenses described in one of the other related articles.

There is already a link in the Animal Testing article under the Controversy heading that refers readers to the Vivisection and experimentation debate page. It says that that is the main article, but there is quite a lot of information right under that link describing the controversy, as well as abuse. Abuse is closely tied to the controversy, so it is important to mention, but it would probably make things simpler if there was one centralized article with research-related abuse, rather than two of them. Gary 04:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm in the process of doing, Gary. There's just a toxicology section at the moment because I only started it this evening. By all means write another section yourself. As for forking off the abuse section, that's what's called a POV fork; it would leave both articles POV. The only reason we know anything at all about what happens in labs is because of animal protection and rights organizations, which have put pressure on governments to collect statistics and have gone into laboratories themselves to film what happens there. It would therefore be odd (and POV) not to include their work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it seemed like I hadn't seen the toxicology section before. The article seems to be improving rapidly, you're doing a great job so far. I'll try adding one of the other sections later. Gary 10:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Gary. I appreciate the feedback. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim Virgin says "The only reason we know anything at all about what happens in labs is because of animal protection and rights organizations, which have put pressure on governments to collect statistics and have gone into laboratories themselves to film what happens there." Sorry, this is nonsense. The UK government has been collecting and publishing stats for decades. There are plenty of TV, radio and newspaper reports dealing with animal research, that are far more neutral than antivivisection organisations. They are abolitionist groups who are bound to make all sorts of allegations about what goes on in labs - after investing time and money in an infiltration they are hardly going to come out and say "well actually, everything was fine". In the UK, and I daresay in other countries, these allegations are always thoroughly investigated by government and rarely found to be substantiated. Also, scientific groups such as the Royal Society and RDS are a rich source of information, many universities now put information on their web sites, and independent bodies such as the House of Lords select committee and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics have conducted very thorough enquiries and produced comprehensive reports. I have cited these sources elsewhere in this discussion.

So, SlimVirgin, I think you need to do some more research before assuming that antivivisection groups are the only source of information, or that they are in any way reliable or neutral. 82.6.117.213 15:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Rm unsourced irrelevant lines

I've removed this again after someone re-added them. "Many, if not most, human diseases are caused by poor nutrition, smoking, {Alcohol abuse|drinking]], drug use and misuse, stress, and lack of exercise. Researching and taking action against these would be relatively cheap and effective."

This line is a dubious personal comment (hastily inserted to get a point across) without source and assumes like many other statements that most diseases are a result of a sedentary lifestyle. (meaning only the affluent western world) AIDS is the number one killer in most parts of the developing world (read a larger % of world population) followed by other diseases. But that is missing the point; there is no source and even if it were provided, it is a flimsy argument here. Research on these "other diseases" is already going on and it does in no way seems be like an opposition. Infact one cannot abandon research on serious diseases just to study alcohol abuses etc. whose effects are already well documented.

The issue is this: this argument confuses serious diseases with lifestyle problems. drugs/exercise/stress are all lifestyle related ones and everyone fully knows their effects and how to improve them i.e. stop drugs/cigarettes or improve diet/workouts etc.. AIDS/Cancer/Influenza are NOT simply lifestyle oriented ailments and no one knows how to cure a virus, yet. So please stop adding arguments for the sake of adding as it sounds childish. Idleguy 05:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Idleguy, please stop your activism and your insults. (How do you know it was "hastily inserted"?) The passage was sourced. I removed the source because the only URL for the articles kept linking to the home page of the source, which didn't include that section. I've therefore had to write to them to ask how I can link directly to the article. So remove it if you want, but I'll be putting it back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't see your hand in removing that. Anyways, I hope you were able to understand the reasoning behind removing that line. If you are going to readd them then I'm sorry how your comments sound like a typical arrogant admin (with a systemic bias). Yes I intend to make the article show only the relevant ones and I am not an obsessed activist like you are. Tx Idleguy 06:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the reasoning. I had intended to remove it myself when I removed the source, but forgot. But saying it's unsourced is good enough; there's no need to assume bad faith. You intend to make the article show only the relevant whats? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You know something? This article does not talk about what's going on in countries like India and China. The rules are far, far lax there and since this new BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) has been booming in India and elsehwere it is not only in the IT field but also in the Pharma field. UK's main pharamceutical giants are starting to shift their base to India and with it much of the research (Incl. animals). It is not encourgaging to learn that they indulge in double animal testing in India; according to Blue Cross - a animal welfare org and Maneka Gandhi less than 2% of animal testing has led to something significant. Most are just tested for drugs already tested in the western world. It's very hard to obtain such facts given that media seldom reports them, but I'm sure with you network you can add them here too.

Right now this article talks only on the malpractices of those in europe and US. that's why I tagged it accordingly. Idleguy 06:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

By all means, add that material if you can find it. I don't feel you should tag articles where people have just started a clean-up. I added a note below pointing out that the material so far is very UK oriented, but that's only because I just started the work today, and UK sources are all I've found so far; that's in part because it's a big issue in the UK and so a lot of figures are available. As you say, it's harder to find good figures for some countries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've started trying to make this article more factual and more descriptive of what animal testing is, rather than just having a list of pro and con arguments. I've taken a lot of the information so far from BUAV, which relies on reports from the British government, so the information is sound, but it's very oriented to the UK at the moment. When I next do some research, I'll try to get similar information for the U.S. and Japan, which are the two big testers outside Europe.

BUAV stands for British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection: hardly presenting a NPOV. So they "rely on reports from the British government". Only in the sense that they take them and twist them to their own ends. See for instance these RDS news pages [6],[7], and [8]. Try following through some of the links from these pages if you don't believe this is credible. 82.6.117.213 14:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I started a section describing the different kinds of tests that tend to be performed. So far I've only written the toxicology one. Other sections could include practising surgical and dental techniques, brain research, psychological testing, lung research. Or we could section these into pure research and applied research.

I also tried to tidy the writing a little in the cosmetics and alternatives sections. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I also expanded the pro section and reduced the anti section so that they're more equal in size. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I've added a few sources as embedded links, but haven't yet added full citations to the references section. I'll do that next time I'm editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Gary, just to let you know, the link you added [9] doesn't seem to work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment: clarification

There are two matters I think should be commented on:

(1) Should we represent all sides of the argument, including misused data, in the interest of neutrality? I mean things like:

"aspirin, for example, is a teratogen in animals, but not in humans"

Aspirin causes teratogenesis and death in animals at doses that are also toxic to human beings. The reason there isn't a body of literature on aspirin-based death and birth defects in humans is because we would have to take 50 or 60 tablets in one day to produce those kinds of effects. There is some data that shows birth defects in babies born to mothers who regularly consume a great deal of aspirin. The point is: this argument IS put forth by the opponents to animal testing, but this argument is NOT factually accurate. Do we leave things like that in this article or not?

(On a related note: thalidomide was never tested on pregnant animals, hence its inability to predict birth defects, and an animal model for Parkinson's Disease can be induced by a drug called MTPT--this in particular is so prevalent in the literature regarding learning and memory that it's a particularly egregious factual error to have in an encyclopedia.)

(2) I want to hear from new, neutral voices whether it is a biased "point of view" that scientists use animal models to try to learn things, or if that can be generally accepted as a true statement. Again, I understand that some people believe that scientists use animal models for no other purpose, with no other intention, than torturing animals, but I would like for people to comment on whether or not this is an extreme, fringe, minority view, or one that should be represented equally.69.205.174.23 19:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

69, I encourage you to read our editorial policies, particularly about how to use sources. You say that aspirin isn't a teratogen. But the source is a British government public inquiry, which heard eminent witnesses from both sides of the dispute. A list of their witnesses is here. [10] You're suggesting you're a better source for Wikipedia than any of these people or the British government.

Yes, they heard "eminent witnesses", but obviously not on the particular subject of aspirin. Their cited source for that argument was the BUAV, who in turn cite this study: Robertson, R.T et al, (1979). Teratology, 21:313-20

This is the abstract of that study:

 Experimental Teratology

Aspirin: Teratogenic evaluation in the dog Richard T. Robertson, Henry L. Allen, Delwin L. Bokelman Department of Safety Assessment, Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research, West Point, Pennsylvania 19486

Abstract Beagle bitches were administered aspirin at either 100 or 400 mg/kg/day between Days 15 and 22 or Days 23 and 30 postmating, and corresponding control groups were dosed with vehicle during one of these same time periods. Maternotoxicity was evident in all dogs dosed with 400 mg/kg/day of aspirin, but no signs of toxicity were observed in dogs at the lower dosage level. An increase in the number of resorptions was observed when 400 mg/kg/day of aspirin was administered from Days 16 to 22 postmating. Teratogenicity, as evidenced by 50% malformation rate, was seen in fetuses from dams treated with 400 mg/kg/day on Days 23 to 30 postmating. Observed malformations included, but were not limited to cleft palate, micrognathia, anasarca, cardiovascular malformations, and tail anomalies. No evidence of embryotoxic or teratogenic effects was seen in fetuses from either 100 mg/kg/day dosage level group. Examination of fetuses from 12 untreated litters and 4 vehicle-control litters revealed a very low spontaneous malformation rate confined almost entirely to minor tail abnormalities. These data support use of the dog as an acceptable alternative species in teratogenic screening.

Emphasis mine.

Note that at the dosage of 400 mg/kg/day, a 50kg human being would be consuming 20,000 mg of aspirin per day. In the usual 325mg tablets, that's about 61 tablets--exactly what I told you earlier.

Check your facts, even if the BUAV is too lazy and obsessed with their agenda to bother.

You're engaged in original research. I can't stress strongly enough that we're not allowed to do this. If the British govt publishes a report saying X, we report X and use their report as a source. We don't investigate how they came to know what they claim to know. If someone other than you has challenged the aspirin claim, and it's a credible source, please give that source here on the talk page, and the information can be incorporated. But if you can't find a source, then it can't be.

You reveal the strength of your opinions in your view of the BUAV as "lazy" and "obsessed." They're one of the most respected animal-protection groups in the world; their research is regarded as high quality, and is regularly accepted by the courts and the government in Britain, and elsewhere in Europe.

In any event, as I stated in a comment yesterday, the only reason I'm using the BUAV is that they're largely repeating information from the British govt. I'm just linking to the BUAV website because they're repeating it there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, your claim about the animal model for Parkinson's is disputed. In fact, it's that kind of dispute that goes to the heart of the debate. Yet you're asking us to ignore it, because you disagree with it. Again, please read WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. We represent what the good sources say, not what we personally believe to be true.

I am asking you not to represent it as fact when even your source does not. See their citation regarding Parkinson's: 69 BUAV (p. 89). The MRC disagree (p. 221), as do the Parkinson's Disease Society of the UK (p. 251). Back

Gee whiz, once again the BUAV is pushing their agenda and ignoring science. THAT is why I don't want this brought up, NOT because of my personal opinions.

See above.

Also, no one has suggested that we should represent the view that scientists used animal models for the sole purpose of torturing them. It isn't helpful to set up straw man arguments.

As for your latest additions to the intro, I've reverted them for the following reasons:

1. "Animal testing has contributed to the development of treatments for rabies, smallpox, anthrax, rickets, diabetes, tetanus, rheumatoid arthritis, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, manic depression, cancer, anxiety, rubella, measles, organ rejection and leprosy." [11]

You placed this as the second sentence, even though it's a highly contested claim, yet you state it as fact. That would be like writing that millions of animals are "tortured" around the world each year, and representing that as fact. Your statement is contested at two levels: (a) some contest it absolutely and argue that animal testing has not made significant contributions, and (b) others contest it in the sense that, yes, animal testing may have contributed, but other types of research might have contributed better and faster.

This is NOT a contested claim. I did not call a single one of the contributions significant. I did not state that those advancements would have been impossible by other means. I only stated--and this is a verifiable, nondisputable fact--that animal testing WAS used in each and everyone of those circumstances.

It's either significant or it's trivially true. You didn't write it as though you were stating a trivial truth. Animal testing made a contribution in the case of Thalidomide too, but you don't mention that. The clear implication of your sentence is that the contribution was positive, and that is precisely what is in dispute, so you can't state it as fact in the second sentence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It is just as much a fact that animal testing was used in those circumstances as it is a fact that 100 million animals are killed every year.

No, all the sources use this figure, on both sides. I haven't found a source yet that disputes it, though I continue to look for one, and if you have one, I would welcome it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I could just as easily suggest that those animals would be killed by predators in the wild, or kept as pets, or used to make carpets out of if they weren't used for animal testing! But the fact is that those animals WERE killed because of animal testing. Those treatments WERE the result of animal testing.

That is disputed, and you're engaged in original research against with speculation about which animals would have been killed anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro is meant to give a broad overview of the subject. I deliberately left it very factual, and represented the broad dilemmas only in the fourth paragraph (four paras is as long as an intro should be, by the way) without getting into detail.

2. "Scientists also prefer to use animal models for practical reasons, because they believe that environmental and genetic variables can be controlled better in animals." [12].

This is a subset of the argument already in the intro, namely that it's regarded as acceptable to perform procedures on animals that could not be performed on humans. We could not keep humans incarcerated so that we could control the variables. But again, your point begs the question as to whether the variables are really controlled. One of the arguments on the other side is that in fact there are so many variables in the laboratory setting that test results can't be trusted. Finally, you can't say "scientists prefer" when you mean "scientists who support animal testing prefer ..."

The only reason I brought up the REAL reason scientists use animals is because you had listed a bunch of peripheral arguments that have basically nothing to do with why scientists use animals. I really thought it would be obvious that the scientists who are doing the animal testing, and thus preferring animals to other models, would be the scientists who support animal testing, but if you want that spelled out than just spell it out instead of repeatedly deleting EVERY SINGLE THING I ADD TO THIS ARTICLE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOUR POV.

I'm deleting your material because it's unencyclopedic, because you're paying no attention to the quality of writing and the narrative flow, because you don't understand how to use sources, because you're engaged in original research, bceause you're posting from more than one anonymous IP address, because the only edits you've made to Wikipedia have been to this article or talk page, because you have a very strong pro-testing POV, and because you're a single issue editor who appears to be here with an agenda. If you edit within our policies, which includes using good sources, you'll find you have no problems from me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you didn't explain why you deleted the section in which I did explain, in numbers, with cited sources, which scientists and doctors support animal testing.

I don't recall which section. Please link to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

3. "According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), any use of vertebrate animals in scientific testing should consider the procedure's relevance and value to society and to health, both animal and human." [13]

It isn't appropriate to have only one country's guideline in the intro. I'm going to create a section outlining the guidelines of the biggest testers, which are Europe, U.S., Japan, and (I discovered yesterday) China.

Fine, I'll relocate it when those sections are created.

I'm fine with putting up an RfC, but I'd like to wait until this clean-up is finished. There's no point in asking people to comment on an article in the middle of a rewrite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to do a rewirite that will go through POV stages I suggest that you do it at Animal testing/temp. Otherwise don't be supurised when people deal with what is there at the time.Geni 22:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What is POV in the article as it currently stands, Geni? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to think that mentioning the LD50 test and the Draize test is POV. [14] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning it in that form was.Geni 23:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning it in what form? Please say what your objection was, and why you deleted, rather than editing it. I'd really like to know for the future, so I can pre-empt your objections, rather than have you revert. Here it is after the copy edit I did last night. [15] Are you still saying this is POV? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It gives to much prominace to the LD50 test comparded to it's sucessor. However it is close enough that it will do as a base to start from.Geni 02:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What's its successor? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Fixed Dose Procedure.[16] The Up and Down Procedure (UDP) and the Acute Toxic Class (ATC) methods are also used.82.6.117.213 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Drug-testing section

This seems to misunderstand the different types of tests. Does anyone know what was used as as source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

whats wrong with it? It seems to broadly define drug testing procedures in the uk (ok so it fails to cover tests to deal with pregnacy and steroisomers).Geni 02:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, mostly that the toxicology tests are already mentioned in the toxicology section, and the rest of it seems quite simplistic. I was thinking it would be more useful to have pure research, applied research, and toxicology sections, and to describe the various kinds of studies or tests as they apply to each of the above, as that's how the regulators split up the procedures when companies and universities apply for licences.

What is the successor to the LD50 test? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

They up the dose until the animals start to show ill effects. The other sections don't really cover what is being looked for and what classes of chemicals are screened (it isn't just the drug).Geni 05:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean the high-dose response test? That isn't a successor to the LD50 test: it's just that it's used more often in Britain, but that's just one country — and anyway, the LD50 is still used there too. Or do you mean another test?

When you say "it isn't just the drug," I'm not sure what you mean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, the other sections aren't written yet. ;-) The only one I've written so far is the toxicology one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Last I herd you had the cheack the drug. It's metabolites and it's steroisomers. Do you have any evidence that the LD50 is still in the UK preferbly from a source I might acturaly belive.Geni 14:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not with you. I don't know how you're distinguishing between the drug and the chemicals, as you did above. As for the LD50 test, it's in the government report I've linked to in the article: still allowed to be used in exceptional circumstances, which in this case means the Ministry of Defence.

What kinds of sources don't you believe? And can you let me know which test you're saying is the successor to the LD50, so we can include it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The goverment report calls it the Fixed Dose Procedure. You don't appear to have a source for the claim that the non oral LD50 tests are still in use. The exception for the MOD doesn't mean much (they hung onto the death penitalty for a long time).Geni 16:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The sources are in the article. "Since the 1997 review by the APC, a number of other regulatory developments have taken place, including ... a ban on the acute oral Lethal Dose 50% (LD50) test (OECD test guideline 401) save in exceptional circumstances (21 October 1999) [note: only the oral LD50 test is banned], [17] and "[t]he LD50 test is still occasionally used, for example by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), but its use is subject to special justification (see Q. 1583 and paras 2-3 of the memorandum supplementary to the MOD's oral evidence). [18] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Numbers in the U.S.

I've added a section on the different regulatory systems: so far, U.S., UK, Japan, and France. I'd like to find China too, though apparently they have little regulation.

I also think I may have gotten the numbers of animals used annually in the U.S. wrong. I took the figure 1,101,958 from here [19] and they're government figures, so they should be right, but on other U.S. govt websites, I've read that two million per year, or ten per cent, are used in toxicology tests, which suggests 20 million a year. It's possible that the numbers in the table should have some zeros added, but it doesn't say that anywhere, and anyway that still wouldn't give us 20 million. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've strengthened the pro-testing argument in the intro, and I'll add something very brief on Sunday or Monday about the anti position; the intro can't be much longer though, so it can only be a sentence or two. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the official numbers in the US do not include mice and rats, which make up the majority. The reference given is for lab inspections, not numbers of animals or procedures.

I also think the BUAV estimate for world-wide use is an overestimate. BUAV is neither a credible nor a neutral source. Others estimate the number to be about half that, ie 50 million. If I can find a reference I'll add it in. 82.6.117.213 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV warning

At what stage will the warning be removed? Who judges this page neutral or otherwise, and how?

It is established fact that the overwhelming majority of the biomedical research community, and neutral observers (see many recent UK reports, eg Royal Society 2002, House of Lords 2002, The Lancet 2004, Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2005) agree that animal research is scientifically valid.

Most of this dispute seems to contest the established scientific POV by use of biassed sources, largely single issue pressure groups (BUAV is most definitely not neutral, neither is the source for the rabbit "draize test" picture which I have just removed as it does not depict the Draize test). These sources are neither scientific nor representative of anything other than a small minority view (see MORI opinion research for in depth examination of UK public opinion, which is largely supportive of animal research).

Will this dispute drag on interminably and unproductively with endless edits and counter edits? Would it not be better to delete this page altogether and start afresh? 217.206.196.219 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article has made a lot of progress in the past week or so and it has been vastly improved in almost every respect. Although at one point I said that we should start over from a fresh page, I think that the edits that have been made since then remove the need for such drastic measures.

I'm planning on adding a paragraph or two to the "Types of Experiment" when I have the time. I'm thinking of something about pure research. Huge advances have been made in the past few years in regards to our understanding of various genes and processes in development, I think I might write about some of that while trying not to make it too technical. I might also mention dissection - in high schools and colleges a lot of vegetarians refuse to dissect anything, so it seems like a contentious issue, and it is worth mentioning here. Gary 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. I haven't stopped adding to it by the way; I've just been a bit tied up, and I'll continue as soon as I can. A section from you on pure research (or whatever you choose) would be excellent. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Types of experiment

Toxicology tests and drug testing make up about 15% of animal procedures in the UK and likely the rest of the world (you can get comprehensive stats from the UK Home Office[20]). So what about basic and applied research and drug development (although efficacy tests and metabolic studies, which are under presently under drug testing, are part of drug development), and breeding of GM animals?

Because it is incomplete, this section is skewed. It needs to be rearranged and added to.

Worse, the specific toxicology test section is largely unreferenced, inaccurate and misleading: it reads as though it has come straight from antivivisection propaganda. This section needs to be more factual, neutral and contain citations.

Non-neutral antivivisection organisations, particularly BUAV, are extensivley cited throughout this entry. To promote overall neutrality it would be a good idea to cite some of the more scientifically based organisations such as RDS [21], CMP [22], the Biomedical Research Education Trust [23] or the Royal Society [24]. One of the most recent, neutral and comprehensive sources on the whole issue of animals in medical research is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report [25] but it doesn't get cited at all. 82.6.117.213 12:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, 82. It's not that the section on types of tests is deliberately skewed, just that it isn't finished. Gary is thinking of adding a section on pure research. I'll find citations for the different kinds of toxicology tests. The reason BUAV is quoted a lot is in part because they have a lot of stats on their website (e.g. from the British government). Thanks for providing the Nuffield Council link. I'll take a look at it later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I accept that you and Gary are going to add more, and this may improve it. I think it's OK to quote verifiable *facts* from BUAV, but not their colourful language and spin. But it's always better to use a primary source if possible - if BUAV "quote" the British government, then why not find the original - bound to be more reliable and robust - and quote that. 82.6.117.213 14:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro again

An anon just added this: "According to the U.S. Foundation for Biomedical Research, "[a]nimal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health." [5] Since its inception in 1901, approximately 70% of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine have been awarded for medical advances that have depended on animal research. Examples which have changed the world include the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplantation (dogs) and work on poliovirus that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys).[6][7]"

I think this will need to be edited down; it's going to make the intro too long because we've yet to add a pro-testing paragraph. The first two paras are descriptive, and the last two were going to be pro-testing and anti-testing, one each. The inclusion of a second pro-testing para throws this off balance. I won't edit it just yet because I want to write the anti-testing one first, then check for length. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if you edit it down you still retain the new bit somewhere prominent? I think it's quite important to have good referenced sources of the medical benefits of animal research as this is the main pro argument. 82.6.117.213 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Statements without neutral source

Can we have some neutral sources for these statements that have been languishing for quite sometime now?

"* Most animal testing is conducted for non-medical reason

Even with medical and non-commercial research, tests are often conducted to produce academic papers in order to acquire a Ph.D., academic tenure, or more funding, and not because the research is beneficial."

and to a lesser extent this statement too which is a bit confusing...

"* The animal-testing industry is a multi-million dollar concern. Advocates of testing may argue that their interests are scientific, but they are just as often commercial."

Does it mean that there is an "animal testing industry"? A term that fetches around 232 hits on Google with the first one propping from Wikipedia (so padding up the count with its forks and mirrors). The rest are mostly from biased groups. It would certainly be interesting to know the turnover of this "industry". Drug research firms would be a more neutral term, but I'm afraid that some editors holding extreme POV would think otherwise.

I've tagged it as dubious and are likely to be removed unless the source is provided soon. Idleguy 07:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. All these statements are very dubious and simply perpetuate the fallacy that animal research is cheap or easy. 82.6.117.213 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

These are the anti-testing arguments. They're not stated as fact. Also, sources don't have to be "neutral", whatever that means (if sources had to be "neutral," almost no sources would be useable on WP). They have to be "reliable," "reputable," and "credible." See WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why then do you use BUAV extensively as a source (I assume this is SlimVirgin's doing as he/she seems to be trying to dictate the whole entry - can someone explain to me how that happens in this uber-democratic project?) As pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, BUAV has been shown to be far from reliable, reputable or credible. Follow the rules, SlimVirgin!82.6.117.213 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

True. That's why I suggest removing them since they are not facts. Read WP:RS#Partisan_websites to understand what I mean. Next thing you know, these statistics will be "sourced" from people or organizations holding extreme views on this subject matter. Also read WP:RS#Cite_peer-reviewed_scientific_journals_and_check_community_consensus that explains why it is better to use neutral (IMO a scientific journal is more neutral than a animal rights org) source to resolve any such dubious claims. Idleguy 05:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The section is about pro and anti-testing arguments. Not facts, arguments. That is what the section is.

As for the argument that scientific journals aren't partisan, in an article like this, they definitely are because they're pro-testing. Pro-testing isn't the default position.

You cited WP:RS#Partisan_websites, but it talks about websites widely acknowledged as "extremist," not just displaying a bias. All sources display some bias or another. The examples given are Stormfront and Hamas. Hardly comparable to the BUAV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific journals are pro-testing? I don't think so. They just report the results of scientific research. How is that pro-testing? If a good quality, peer-reviewed piece of research showed that animal testing was flawed, a scientific journal would publish it. What exactly is the "default position"? Reputable scientists are not "pro-testing", hardly anyone is, but the vast majority believe it is necessary to advance science and medicine. 82.6.117.213 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what I meant. They thnk it's necessary and therefore they hold a position, meaning they're not neutral. I'm not saying they can't be used, because of course they can, but the bias is there, as it is with most if not all sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I said that "scientists" believe it's necesary, not "scientific journals". I was trying to make the point that scientific journals DO NOT hold a pro-animal-testing position, while scientists COULD BE REGARDED as holding such a position. You just moved the goal posts. 82.6.117.213 17:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, partisan means bias. The examples given there were just that. An example. Not the definitive list. And there's nothing more to add than what anon has said on the scientific community. --Idleguy 09:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. --Idleguy 09:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what that means either, or what the point is of you leaving cryptic comments here. As I recall, I wrote that part of the WP:RS guideline, so I know what it means. Extremist doesn't mean the same thing as biased or partisan. Beyond that point, I've no idea what you're trying to say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that it's clear that you make up the rules (or atleast write some) you should atleast try to follow them and provide sources instead of engaging in comments that goes nowhere. Your editing clearly reflects your bias and it doesn't take a genius to figure that. Anyone that says something against your line of thinking is branded as being biased irrespective of the facts and their standing. As you are currently trying to portray the scientistific community as biased I wonder if there'll be any end to your bias. And I'm not being cryptic. Idleguy 11:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue discussing this with you so this is my last response. You are trying to portray the scientists who agree with animal testing as neutral, but the people who do not agree with it as biased. That's nonsense, and it's a misunderstanding of our NPOV policy. All these positions are points of view, and they will all be represented as such. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus of the scientific community is different from a few "scientists". The former is what I mean, the latter is what you have inferred and twisting what I said to suit yourself and trashing others. Idleguy 12:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

New edits

I decided this discussion is sterile and going nowhere. I make comments or requests for changes which are ignored or rubbished. So I have started editing to remove unsupported statements, claims and inaccuracies (eg Oxford University is NOT building a primate centre!) and add in more factual information. I have got as far as the toxicology section.

The abuse section needs a total rewrite, based as it is on BUAV's partial view of their own infiltration of Cambridge University. I will try to do this next.

If someone else can add to the types of test section (Idleguy? that would be great. At the moment it only covers about 15% of animal experimentation. If no-one wants to take this on, I will also try to tackle this in the next month or so. 82.6.117.213 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've started working towards a description of the regulations that apply to the use of non-human primates. Hopefully Wikiversity will be started soon and this will become an organized Wikiversity research effort; Laboratory animals in biomedical research. --JWSchmidt 00:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that SlimVirgin has reinstated a previous version which is full of errors. I don't think he/she should be allowed to (re)insert material that is incorrect and unreferenced (eg the bit on UK licensing is factually incorrect and the "Abuse" section is based on inuendo and misrepresentation by infiltrators) while criticising others for doing the same. I think 82 should reinstate his/her edits, which in my view make for a much better balanced article. What do others think? 217.206.196.218 16:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

217.206.196.218: can you post the two different versions here? --JWSchmidt 21:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The following is the earlier version that Slim reinstated, so it is now current:

Abuse

Clip from undercover footage filmed in 1997 by PETA inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.Undercover investigations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have documented and filmed examples of animal abuse in laboratories, and of animals being used in questionable experiments.

PETA filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, punching puppies in the face, screaming at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples [43] (video). The film was subsequently shown as "It's a Dog's Life" on Channel 4 television in the UK in 1997, as a result of which Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was formed, an international campaign to close HLS. In the United States, HLS technicians were filmed screaming and laughing at monkeys, and appearing to dissect one that was still alive [44] (video).

BUAV filmed staff in Covance, Europe's largest primate-testing center based in Germany, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them [45] (video).

In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their brains exposed and no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five.

The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "Cambridge staff work 9-5pm, so animals who had just been brain damaged were left overnight without veterinary attention. Some were found to be dead in the morning, some were found to be in a worse condition. Yet there is an obligation of licence holders to keep suffering to a minimum. The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on." [46]

The Cambridge experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for pure- and applied-research purposes, in the interests of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first of all trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by cutting or sucking out parts of the macaque's brains, or by injecting toxins, after which the monkeys were re-tested to determine whether the damage had affected their skills. The macaques were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, both before and after the surgery, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours for the duration of the experiment, with intermittent respite. [47] [48] (video)

In 2003, according to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [49] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to the National Institutes of Health, PETA described one experiment: "On September 19, 2001, baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21, 2001, the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' With no further notation about consulting with a veterinarian, the record reads, 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in the cage.'" [50]

In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" [51] (pdf).

This is the version posted by 86 (note from JWS: I assume "86" was meant to be "82" = 82.6.117.213; the version posted 17:40, 26 November 2005) (BTW, you can see all this in history). It could do with some more references, but I think it is more balanced:

Infiltrations

Clip from undercover footage filmed in 1997 inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.Infiltrations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have alleged that animals are abused and used in questionable experiments in laboratories.

An infiltator filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, punching puppies in the face, screaming at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples [43] (video). The film was subsequently shown as "It's a Dog's Life" on Channel 4 television in the UK in 1997, as a result of which Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was formed, an international campaign to close HLS. In the United States, HLS technicians were filmed screaming and laughing at monkeys, and appearing to dissect one that was still alive [44] (video).

After the UK incident the staff involved were dismissed and prosecuted and new management was brought in. It was one of only two infiltrations in the UK in which allegationms of major misconduct were upheld. The other occurred in 1990 when an elderly Professor was filmed working on under-anaesthetised animals.

In recent years BUAV have infiltrated the laboratory breeders Harlan UK, Cambridge University, and a contract research laboratory in Germany. On each occasion their allegations were thoroughly investigated and none were upheld [45] [46].

In 2003, according to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [47] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" [48] (pdf).

I think the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report [26] may have said something on infiltrations, so I'll see if I can find it. 217.206.196.218 09:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to extract the two versions, it saves me trying to guess exactly what is in dispute. I'm going to look in detail at the differences between the two versions. I'm thinking that it would be useful to clearly put this in the context the system (we actually have to deal with multiple systems in various countries) of regulations and inspections of laboratories, the types of infractions that official inspectors find in labs where animals are used in research, how institutions respond to cited infractions, complaints that people may have about the existing system of regulations and inspections, and the history of unofficial inspections by means of "infiltrations". --JWSchmidt 19:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Infiltrations" vs "Undercover investigations"
I just spent a lot of time reading at the PETA and BUAV websites. I'm not sure that "infiltration" is the best word to use in describing what is done by PETA and BUAV. My search of their websites indicates that these group rarely use the term "infiltration". "Undercover investigation" seems to convey what is done and there is no reason Wikipedia cannot use the term that these groups seem to prefer to use to describe their own actions.

The title of this section is a mater of dispute ("Abuse" vs "Infiltrations"). It might be wise to have a longer section title reflecting expansion of this section to cover both the problems found by conventional inspections and the results of undercover investigations. I think everyone can agree that it is important to find, document and prevent animal abuse and problems in how animals are used for research. Here is a longer section title, probably too long, but descriptive: Violations of animal care regulations revealed by inspections and investigations.

It is my understanding that (at least in the United States) official inspectors routinely cite institutions for violations of animal care regulations. Wikipedia should describe the number and nature of these violations and what remedies follow the issue of these citations. I think all this information is available from the USDA. This description of violations of regulations would flow naturally into a description of results from un-official undercover investigations, but there could be a description of why PETA and BUAV do not think that conventional inspections are adequate. My view is that the description of these undercover investigations should not only be an account given by PETA or BUAV. If a legal case results from an undercover investigation, the results of that legal case need to be described. I also think Wikipedia needs to make an effort to determine if some "undercover investigations" by PETA and BUAV do not result in a legal finding of animal abuse first example I found.

Examples used by 82.6.117.213 (references #45 and #46) in the version called "Infiltrations", above: BUAV investigation of laboratory animal breeder Harlan UK, I get a Page not found error for the URL that was reference #46.

This is very annoyoing. The UK Home Office seems to have rearranged its web site and many important documents do not now seem to be available, including the Chief Inspector's report following his investigation of the claims made against Cambridge by BUAV (ref #46). 82.6.117.213 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Beyond documentation of violations of animal care regulations and clear cases of animal abuse, there is the more difficult issue of "questionable experiments". In the United States, all animal experiments have to be justified before they take place. This is not generally something that is decided by inspections or undercover investigations. An example that is mentioned at the Wikipedia BUAV article is use of the LD50 test and how its use was questioned in Britain. My suggestion is that "questionable experiments" be addressed in the Controversy section of the Animal testing article, maybe by pointing to specific examples like the LD50 test.

Similarly in the UK (but even stricter) the Home Office Inspectorate is responsible both for advising on licensing of procedures (ie wehther or not experiments should be allowed to go ahead) and for inspecting facilities. It has just issued its first annual report [27].

I am still working my way through the rest of the two versions of the Abuse/Infiltrations section. --JWSchmidt 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The following paragraph was added by 82.6.117.213 and then removed by SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin's edit comment "deleting unsourced additions" might apply:

After the UK incident the staff involved were dismissed and prosecuted and new management was brought in. It was one of only two infiltrations in the UK in which allegationms of major misconduct were upheld. The other occurred in 1990 when an elderly Professor was filmed working on under-anaesthetised animals.

I think it is useful for Wikipedia to provide a short account of what actions are taken to correct problems after an investigation takes place and what the results of any legal cases were. Citations references that provide the details are needed. In my reading, I also saw a webpage that made the argument that there have been "two infiltrations in the UK in which allegations of major misconduct were upheld"; if that source can be found and cited, then it seems reasonable to include the second and third sentences from the paragraph (above) in the Animal testing article.

The following paragraph was added by 82.6.117.213 and then removed by SlimVirgin.

In recent years BUAV have infiltrated the laboratory breeders Harlan UK, Cambridge University, and a contract research laboratory in Germany. On each occasion their allegations were thoroughly investigated and none were upheld [45] [46].

It seems reasonable to include mention of examples of undercover investigations that did not result in findings of animal abuse. I have a problem getting the URL provided as reference #46 to work for me. Maybe a functioning URL could be found or maybe that example could be replaced by this one. --JWSchmidt 16:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very annoyoing. The UK Home Office seems to have rearranged its web site and many important documents do not now seem to be available, including the Chief Inspector's report following his investigation of the claims made against Cambridge by BUAV (ref #46). 82.6.117.213 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Four paragraphs starting with "BUAV filmed staff in Covance...." were deleted by 82.6.117.213 without any reason that I can find.

The second half of the next paragraph was also deleted:

In a letter to the National Institutes of Health, PETA described one experiment: "On September 19, 2001, baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21, 2001, the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' With no further notation about consulting with a veterinarian, the record reads, 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in the cage.

Are those paragraphs under dispute? --JWSchmidt 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute them. These are BUAV's and PETA's very colourful descriptions, with no evidence to substantiate them. I couldn't find references to provide a balancing view, so thought they should simply be deleted as they were obviously biassed.

The big question is, who is going to resolve disputes and make changes, and how do we know that SlimVirgin will not simply revert to his/her favourite previous version? 82.6.117.213 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just changed the bit in Numbers where SlimVirgin has referenced Nuffield Council on Bioethics as estimating the global numbers at between 50 and 100 million. I can't find anywhere that they say this. They give figures for USA, Europe and Japan only, as far as I can see. BUAV is the only source as far as I know that mentions 100 million. I would annotate my edits with explanations in history, but I can't see how to do that. 82.6.117.213 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes producing a balanced account takes some hard work. I have started exploring ways to access legal documents related to law suits. It might be worth inviting some people who are familiar with these cases to read the Animal testing article and suggest some additional references and sources that might balance things out. In my view, it is bad form to simply delete information that makes you upset. I suggest that each editor provide information and references that they are happy with. If we end up with conflicting accounts, then we will have to explain the sources and their agendas and let the reader decide what POV seems most believable. --JWSchmidt 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)