Talk:Animal testing/Archive 5

Regulation

Hello, anonymous animal researcher again. In the section on regulation in the United States, with reference to the animal welfare act, wouldn't it be BETTER to cite the actual Animal Welfare Act as found on the USDA website, instead of citing anti-vivesectionists and a UK report on the Animal Welfare Act?

Add a cite to

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm

at the end of the first sentence on regulation in the USA.

For the Animal Welfare Act not being used to regulate pain and suffering that forms an integral part of a research plan

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm

The quote on that page is

"Nothing in this Act-

"(i) except as provided in paragraphs (7) of this subsection, shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to promulgate rules, regulations, or orders with regard to the design, outlines, or guidelines of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility;"

The exception they reference (paragraph 7) is that paralytics may not be used instead of a true anesthetic no matter what the scientific goals are. I am not suggesting anything be added to the web page except the URL citation, but I am including the text to save the editors some time. This cite should be placed next to the cite for [18] right now that follows the text "...doesn't interfere with scientific merit."

For the cite on the animal species covered, use the APHIS website

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/9cfr1.1.htm

The relevant quote from that page is

"Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes: Birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, and horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs, including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes."

This cite would follow the text "The AWA only covers non-rodent mammals, and not mice, rats and birds,..."

HTH.

158.93.12.41 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous, the refs seem more appropriate, I don't think anyone will complain if you add them to the article. Nrets 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous animal researcher again. I am finding several issues with accuracy in the enforcement section for the USA. First, the WIKI page claims there are 96 AWA inspectors. The APHIS website http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/inspect.html says there are over 100 (and invites applications for more).

Second, the WIKI page says these 96 inspectors cover over 8800 "institutions". I did some digging at APHIS, and found only 1113 research institutions listed in the most recent report. There are over 4000 institutions each of breeders and dealers (with much overlap in the two lists), but most of these are dog kennels which are also regulated under the Animal Welfare Act. Also, the dog kennels are licensed, and not registered, and do not get regularly inspected like research facilities. Licensed sites must be inspected to compliance levels before a license is granted, and they are not then subject to random inspections. Research facilities are randomly inspected without advance notice.

See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/publications.html near the bottom, where "Facility Lists" are kept. The specific list for research registered sites contains 1113 entries.

I propose to change "There are 96 inspectors to monitor around 8,800 institutions, including research universities and industry (compared to the UK's 29 inspectors for 230 institutions)."

to "There are over 100 inspectors to randomly check roughly 1100 registered research institutions. The inspectors also conduct pre-licensing checks on license registrant who do not engage in animal research or transportation (i.e.: dog kennels)". And add citations to the URLs above which have references for the number of inspectors, and a list of all USDA APHIS registered research institutions. I further believe the references to enforcement in the UK are needless editorializing.

The existing WIKI text appears to come from a British parliament report which counted ALL Animal Welfare Act locations equally, and used an older number for the number of inspectors as it was published in 2002. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/150/15004.htm

Comments?

158.93.12.41 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means, updated statistics are good. I tried in the past to corroborate the number of institutions (8,800 seemed high), but was not as good as you at unearthing that number. From reading the article, one would think there is almost no oversight of animal welfare in the US, which is obviously not true to anybody involved in research. I have no problem with the changes. Nrets 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for updated stats. Good work in finding them.However, i don't see why the UK stats should be removed completely, they as as relevent as the US stats are, though they could be reworded in a slightly less editorialising manner. Sorry, i realise now that the UK data is present elsewhere. Rockpocket 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of animals and species used

Hello, anonymous animal researcher again.

There are good numbers on animal use, for Animal Welfare Act species, in the 2004 report from the USDA at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/awreports/awreport2004.pdf See the last page. I think we can do an abbreviated table

Year	Dog	Cat	Non-human primate	All
1973	195,157	66,165	42,298	1,653,345
1980	188,783	68,482	56,024	1,661,904
1990	109,992	33,700	47,177	1,578,099
2000	69,516	25,560	57,518	1,286,412
2004	64,932	23,640	54,998	1,101,958

I would propose to add this data to the Number of animals and species used, along with a caveat that far more rats and mice are used, but are not counted in a census form (and include the various citations to estimates of those currently in the article). I also propose including a note that substantial declines in Animal Welfare Act species are present for all species except non-human primates in the data from 1973 to present.

Comments? Questions??

158.93.12.41 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this would be SPECIFIC to animal use in the USA, of course, and would not impact/alter any statements on worldwide or other-national use of animals.

158.93.12.41 19:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In looking further down the page. I propose the paragraph beginning "There are indications that NHP use is on the rise..." be deleted in its entirety, for the following reasons. First, data in the UK and USA, the largest research nations, do not support an increase in NHP numbers. The >30 year trend in the USA for NHPs is steady, not increasing. The UK similarly is steady or decreasing in actual numbers used. Projecting an increase when the trend is a decrease is not realistic.

I'm not sure what to think about the mentions of specific facilities that may or may not use primates that are mentioned. Plans for a new colony of 3000 primates in a nation that uses over 50,000 annually doesn't seem like an event worth mentioning (especially when it is poorly referenced). Oxford's non-specific plans for its new research centers similarly seems to unnecessarily single-out a facility whose animal use, although large as a facility, is small with respect to the UK as a whole.

The whole paragraph on indications NHP use is on the rise appears to come from the Humane society, which doesn't provide specific references to things like primate use in China, or a new primate facility in Florida. I suspect it is alarmist in nature without basis in fact. Or maybe there is a basis in fact, and a real citation could be provided...

158.93.12.41 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No contest from me on the numbers. However, do you have a source that explicitly states the the 30 year trend is steady (rather than infering it from the numbers)? If so, it could be used as a counter point to the claims from the Humane Society that there are indications of an increasing trend, instead of removing the content all together. I don't have a preference whether all talk of trends are removed or both opinions are provided, but if they are kept, i would like to see the sources where trends are being proposed. Rockpocket 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the data on the table corroborate the statement about the numbers being steady, so do we really need a separate refernce to someone mentioning a trend? Or is this considered original research? My question is, does the 50,000 or so primates used annually refer to an additional 50,000 primates every year, or are some of the primates the same ones used over several years? In other words, are 50,000 primates in use at any one time? Nrets 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was concerned that it may constitute OR to infer a trend from raw numbers (as, statistically speaking, what defines a trend isn't always obvious). I agree that the numbers do not appear to back up a increasing trend, but the anti-view doesn't actually talk about trends, it says "There are indications that NHP use is on the rise..." followed by a description of those indications. I would be happier if we had a reliable verifiable source that analyzed those numbers for us (like the British Government did for the UK numbers). Also, it isn't clear from the source whether these numbers are additive, or inclusive of previously counted animals. That would be useful to know, as of all animals used, primates are more likely to be used in longer term studies. Rockpocket 02:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to work out what the trends are because the animal testing industry doesn't want people to have easy access to transparent figures, which is why they love to talk in percentages. If we write to BUAV with specific questions, they may know if the information is published anywhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the numbers include animal catalogued in research. I am quite familiar with some primate laboratories, and 2-3 years is a minimum use time for an animal. Other labs, however, are different (some much longer, some much shorter), and my experience certainly couldn't encompass more than 0.5% of all USA primate usage (so it may be disregarded as substantive). But the USDA APHIS census numbers are not numbers of animals "killed", they are numbers of animals "in use". And there are certainly some animals used for multiple years. I find it interesting all AWA species are declining in use EXCEPT NHPs. Rat and mouse use are probably increasing - at least at every institution I know of they are expanding facilities.

My objection to the Humane society paragraph that "primate use appears to be on the rise" was that it did not cite sources relevant to the census numbers, and the census numbers make a strong case by themselves that the numbers are reasonably steady. Honestly, I think some people are working on increasing the future number of primates in use, and others are working on reducing it, and where it will really go is completely non-obvious. That is why I felt removing the paragraph on trends in primate use would be appropriate. I do not know of any reasonable citations, and the paragraph on the page now is taken from a poorly referenced article by the Humane Society. And to me it looks like faux alarmism.

As to SlimVirgin's assessment that it is difficult to work out the trends, EVERY primate researcher in the USA is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and the USDA publishes its census numbers yearly. There is literally no true data on animal testing in the USA that is not publicly accessible, right down to the anesthesia and analgesia records in individual experiments. Of course people planning future facilities can and will decide when and what to publicly reveal about their plans, which makes it difficult to assess future plans. But if I had a nickle for every grand plan that failed to be realized, I would be a rich man.

Signed: anonymous animal researcher

158.93.12.41 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous animal researcher again. Don't mind reversing myself when I find myself wrong. I found these quotes on the NCRR Strategic Plan 2004-2008 "Nonhuman Models for Biomedical Research...

1. Increase the number of nonhuman primates available for biomedical research, and evaluate other methods to address the shortage of nonhuman primates. The need for these animals has risen substantially and is expected to escalate even more due to their essential role in biodefense, gene transfer research, and the increased risk of transmission of infectious agents to air travelers from remote areas around the globe.

1. Address the critical shortage of Indianorigin rhesus monkeys by establishing robust breeding colonies and enhancing the usefulness of other nonhuman primate species for biomedical research. Develop new and test existing reagents that investigators need to characterize the immune response, genome organization, pedigree structures, and gene expression in these potential alternative nonhuman primate models.

1. Establish a database with information provided through a network among National Primate Research Centers (NPRCs) and other investigators that would allow scientists to locate nonhuman primates with particular characteristics.

1. Develop and enhance the availability of stem cell lines from nonhuman primates. Characterize the effects of micronutrients and other factors on stem cell differentiation in culture, and investigate the therapeutic potential of stem cells in nonhuman primate models of disease."

"Research Capacity Building: Resources, Networks, and Facilities ...Improve and expand facilities that house nonhuman primates. These facilities may be used for quarantine of species imported for research."

So it is safe to say that part of the NIH Mission Statement for 2004-2008 is to increase availability of non-human primates in research, which presumably will lead to an actual increase in primate numbers in use." Citation: http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/about_ncrr/StrategicPlan2004-08.asp For those interested, India banned exportation of NHPs, and this created an imbalance/shortage in USA research temporarily. The newer sources in China were not equivalent as breeders (this has largely resolved), and several US breeders have set up, all to "fill the void" created by the loss of supplies from India.

So, my proposal is 1) to include the table in the paragraph near the top on USDA reports and get rid of the redundant animal numbers in that paragraph (the paragraph begins "According to the US Department of Agriculture" 2) rewrite the lower paragraph on "There are indications..." Include specific citations to the NCRR Strategic Plan 2004-2008 and state that NIH intends to increase availability of NHPs in research. Omit the Oxford references. However, talk about the UK government statements that New World primate use is in definite decline, and that Old World primate use declined 11% from 2003-2004 but its long-term trend is unclear.

Comments?

158.93.12.41 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Slim, I noticed you changed the "Allegations of Abuse" heading to "Controversy", which is fine. However, this implies that the sole controvesy regarding animal research is that there have been isolated cases of abuse in specific locations. Based on your previous edits, and the rest of the article, the controversy goes far beyond this. If the sole controversy regarding animal research was this, then increasing oversight of laboratories, etc. (which has been done) should settle the issue. But somehow I don't think this would satisfy animal rights activists. Nrets 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that increased oversight would make little difference, because these experiments were mostly legal, at least in principle. Some of the researchers were caught out because e.g. they didn't keep the cages clean enough, and that constituted violations of animal protection legislation, but the experiements themselves were regarded as fine. That's why I changed the header from "abuse," because these are really just examples. But I guessed if I called it "Examples," you'd object, so I chose "Controversy." If you can think of an entirely neutral term, I'd probably be fine with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean legal, at least in principle? Either they are legal or illegal. If I, as an animal researcher, conduct research not consistent with my protocol as interpreted by my IACUC, they will suspend my ability to conduct research and confiscate my animals. And this really does happen in some cases in which there are simple differences in interpretation of IACUC protocols between researcher and IACUC. Further action as a researcher would constitute violations of law such as those carried out by animal rights activists (who truly ARE breaking the law and ARE violating Animal laws by interacting with research animals and not being identified on protocols).

158.93.12.41 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I strogly disagree with your assertion that keeping filthy cages and beating animals is the norm for animal research facilities, so yes "Examples" would be a bad heading since this is not what you would find at most facilities. These are examples of researchers not adhering to the proper animal welfare guidelines. You seem to imply that someone needs to get "caught" in order to illustrate the details of a specific scientific procedure, but these details are all freely available in the methods section of any research paper. As I said, I have no problem with "Controversy", but I was just pointing out that it does not quite illustrate the range of objections raised from the anti-animal research POV. You could say "Examples of Abuse". Nrets 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say that filthy cages are the norm? And how on earth would you know that it's not what you find at "most facilities"? Have you been in "most facilities"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

SV, by saying that these are "just examples" it implies to me that you think that this is widespread practice. But I'm sorry if I misread your statement. I haven't been in "most" facilities, but I have been in several, in various countries, and the norm is that they are clean, very tightly regulated and the animals well taken care of. To do otherwise would not be in the best interest of the animals, the scientists, the research and the institution. Nrets 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Except it would have to be "Examples of alleged abuse", as not all are proven or substantiated. Isn't the point, though, that the liberators believe even the legal experiments are abusive and thats primarily what the allegations are about. That, legally, action was taken only on issues of housekeeping, rather than "abuse", is kind of beside the point. Hence the "allegations of abuse" title seemed appropriate to me. But i don't have a huge problem with the change.

I don't believe you did say that, SV. I would say filthy cages are not the norm in any facility i have been in (and that must be approaching 30 now, over three continents). Assuming my sampling is not biased - and i can think of no reason it would be - then one could project this to "most facilities". Rockpocket 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon's edits

I've reverted the anon's recent edits, as I couldn't see the benefit of the changes; he removed material; and he seems to be engaged in OR. Could the anon please say here in more detail what his intentions are? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, the anon's edits have been the topic of discussion over the last few days, he stated that he was going to add updated statistics from original sources. The info he removed was outdated numbers. There was a consensus that this was a good idea, his edits were done in good faith and I believe you are way out of line with your wholesale reversion. What happened to "assume good faith"? Nrets 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion, but I'm not satisfied that the changes are helpful or that they are not OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So you prefer outdated stats that better support your POV. The only questionable OR is talking about trends, which we can probably remove and let the numbers speak for themselves. Nrets 14:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have said a thousand times, add but do not remove material unless everyone agrees to it. He did not simply remove figures, as you know very well. Please stop the fruitless arguing. The anon can say more about his edits, if he wants to, so let's wait for that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply saying that " I'm not satisfied that the changes are helpful" is basically your POV. You need a better reason than to say you don't like them. The anon has made clear why he thinks they are helpful, and I agree with him. This is not about individual users having full veto power, which you seem to think you have. Please make an effor to work with other editors. Nrets 14:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like YOU are allowed to remove material when I object, Slim. But no one else is. Nrets 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm noting here for the record that Nrets has just turned up at PETA, an article he has not edited before, and began to undo an extensive rewrite I've been engaged in for the last few days, apparently as a WP:POINT, because he can't do whatever he wants here. It's because of actions like this that good faith is missing, Nrets, and rightly so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See my note on your talk page. Nrets 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous animal researcher here.

Actually, I added and clarified a lot about the statistics on animal use in the USA, by adding a table and noting the obvious trends in the table. I removed the mention of the 1988 animals in USDA category E, and included the most recent report, the 2004 report, on the fraction of animals in USDA categories C, D, and E (E is the category including animals expected to experience pain and distress that is not relieved). I removed the 1966 numbers, those occurred prior to census taking and are estimates, and there are over 30 years of census numbers in the paragraph.

Further below, I added reference to the 2004-2008 Strategic Plan from the National Center for Research Resources, which indicated a clear intention from the US Government to increase NHP availability through that 4 year period, and a quote on the rationale for that increase. I removed the uncited Florida primate center that would hold 3000 animals and the increased breeding facilities that were similarly uncited - in part because the Strategic report is clearer, more wide-reaching, and actually is cited properly. I removed the Oxford reference because in the grand scheme of total animals used at a national or international level it was irrelevant.

All, or very nearly all, of these changes are discussed above and not objected to over the past three days.

I think if you compare the old and new side by side you will find I went to lengths to improve the citations and numbers available, and stuck to the topic of numbers of animals in use using national or international estimates. Although I have no problem with wikipedia editors refining or even backing out parts of these changes, I think a wholesale reversal throws the baby out with the bathwater and is in fact an ad hominem attack.

-anonymous animal researcher.

158.93.12.42 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. In future, if you want to request citations, please add {{fact}} after the disputed sentence or clause, rather than removing it. If a cite is then not supplied within a reasonable time, you can remove.

I'm concerned that you're engaged in OR here by carefully selecting material to push a certain position. I'll take a closer look at the diffs when I have time. In what sense, for example, is the Oxford material "irrelevant"? It is particularly relevant, in my view, in light of the recent statement by a number of British scientists that Great Ape research may be necessary. Have you carefully reviewed our OR policy? WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt it irrelevant principally because it generated no implication of an increase or decrease in the number of non-human primates in use at Oxford, Britain, or anyplace else. The citations indicate 1) Oxford plans to close existing facilities and open new ones, 2) transfer 31 labs from other places on campus to the animal facility, and 3) provide new state of the art facilities for animal welfare compliance and security against animal rights activism. The latter two are the cause of quite a lot of new animal research buildings.

A second reason I felt it irrelevant was that an institution like Oxford could conceivably have 100 primates if it had quite a large facility for a university (I have no idea how many are there now), still constituting just 1% of all primate use in the entire nation. There is no indication there will be an increase in primate use at Oxford, or that if there were it would be significant to the annual use of primates in Britain.

I didn't see where discussion of the Great Ape ban played into this at all.

To me it just looked like an animal rights group added that reference as one of the largest animal rights campaigns in Britain now is against the new Oxford facility. And, I have no problem with that being referenced in a section on animal rights campaigns, or animal rights activism in Europe, or controversies on animal rights, etc, but it was missplaced in a section discussing whether NHP usage was going up or not. OTOH, the NIH NCRR Strategic Plan is a very definite, wide-scale, well-funded effort to increase NHP usage in the USA, and it was removed.

158.93.12.42 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, in general, i think our anon friend makes a very convincing argument that his proposals do improve the article. In additition his/her intentions were clearly explained on the talkpage first and comments/improvements were specifically requested (and those who did respond did some pretty much in the positive). I think in this case a wholsale revert was overkill, Slim. He/she has followed the suggested protocol for improving the article, has shown that his/her edits are justified and sourced, and cannot be accused of pro-POV pushing, as he/she found an added a sourced statement that backed up claims of rises in NHP use. I'm not saying his/her content can't be improved, but i don't think it should have been reverted. Rockpocket 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anon, I think it has to do more with a culture of primate use than only with figures. But I still don't see why you want to remove it. If you personally think it's irrelevant, that doesn't mean that everyone else will. As I've said before, it's fine to add material, but removing material is another matter. RP, I reverted because he made too many changes at once, including deletions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RP, I've read it again and I honestly can't see where the improvements lie. Objections: (a) "Many animals are used for consecutive years and counted in the census each year ..." Could we have a source please? (b) "Below is a partial summary table of these numbers." That concerns me because it sounds like OR. (c) Approximately 7-8%, or 86,000 in 2004, of the non-rodent mammals in use were categorized in USDA Category E, meaning unrelieved pain and distress occurred. 36% of the USDA census were in category D, meaning pain and distress occurred but was relieved with anesthesia and/or analgesia, and 56% were in category C ..." What use are these percentages to our readers, and categories E, D, C and "USDA census," none of it explained. It makes the article unreadable.

I object to these changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

a) this is getting pedantic. Census numbers are animals in use in research, not animals killed in research, by their very basic definition. Clarification on this point was asked for above in discussion, I thought that probably indicated that readers in general would not understand the meaning of the census numbers. b) I included a partial summary instead of all the numbers because any reasonable person who looked at the whole table would see all animal species' use is in decline except NHPs c) I "deleted" text on the 1988 USDA category E animals in use (E == unrelieved pain and distress). However, I did not want to "delete" a potentially useful point, so I added the 2004 category E animals in use, both in raw numbers and as a fraction of the total. In a search of "fairness", I also included the fraction in Category D (animals who would see pain and distress, but have it relieved) and Category C (no pain or distress as part of experimental design). It may be poorly written, but that would encourage clarification, not deletion. As to the Oxford change, it simply didn't fit in this portion of the article on animal testing because it didn't pertain to animal use numbers. Oxford, whereas it does conduct a fair fraction of NHP highly controversial brain research in Britain, does not use a substantial fraction of all of Britain's NHPs. And the citations and event at issue do not suggest any increase in NHP use, much less a major one relative to the whole of Britain. If it contributed to an paragraph on NHP animal use numbers in Britain, or suggested a change in future numbers, it should be included. Signed, anonymous animal researcher

68.220.69.39 23:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern with your edits is largely threefold, but particularly the first. (1) You have a strong POV, which is fine. What concerns me, however, is that you believe your POV is the default position. You wrote previously: "[W]hen a group of unbiased people seeking to improve society get together to consider the issue, they find animal rights absurd, but animal welfare important ..." Here you state as a fact that unbiased people find animal rights absurd. But if they find it absurd, they are biased, by definition. Because you hold this attitude (that your POV is not a POV), I am having trouble trusting your editing. (2) I would like to see a source for "Many animals are used for consecutive years and counted in the census each year," and what is meant by "many." (3) You're introducing material that is barely readable. Please believe me when I tell you that no-one will read a paragraph full of "36 percent of Category X as opposed to 3 percent of Category Y, while 40 percent of the blah-blah census were in Category Z." And given your view that your POV is not a POV, I am concerned that you're attempting to obfuscate with confusing figures. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1) My background is clear and the material is cited. 2) http://www.heartland.org/pdf/19302.pdf A citation from the American Physiological Society on animal use numbers, indicating the certainty that animals are counted multiple times. "Many" is inappropriate, "at least some" would be much better. 3) Editing for clarity is encouraged. I deleted the 1988 counts of USDA category E animals. That deletion was a clear POV violation. So, I added the 2004 USDA category E counts, along with the counts for category C and D. I felt that to be POV neutral numbers for each category should be mentioned. Animal rights activists always mention the category E numbers, animal research protectors always cite the C numbers, all categories are equally relevant to the topic. Signed, anonymous animal researcher.

68.220.69.39 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That reply doesn't really address my concerns, particularly the first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I will ever really be satisfied with the edits of an obvious animal rights POV-ist such as you either. At the current time you have absolutely cherry-picked my edits to include all of those favorable to the animal rights POV, and backed out or failed to include those that actually clarify animal use numbers. The table and accompanying edits summarized a paragraph that is horribly fragmented and difficult to read as it currently sits. The table clearly shows the numbers from 1973 to present, along with the quite obvious trend. The other data on non-covered species was present in my version as well, and I included animal counts in all three USDA categories, and did not cherry-pick those in category E to elicit sympathy from animal rights activists (using out-dated numbers no less instead of the easily available 2004 numbers). I still maintain that the table is much better than lists of numbers in text (which are far less complete). And, the reference to Oxford's program still doesn't generate anything substantive to anyone's understanding of animal use numbers in Britain or anyplace else - but it does serve as a cheap advertiser for the highest profile animal rights campaign in Britain. It is clear POV. And, the reference to increases in breeding colony sizes in Oregon and New Iberia are still uncited and much less informative than the cited NCRR Strategic Plan - the only one of my edits you kept. -signed, anonymous animal researcher

68.220.69.39 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't kept any of your edits except the reference to the NIH breeding colonies, which was already mentioned in that same paragraph, had you read it. You haven't clarified anything, which is why there is such confusion. I don't understand what you're saying, and to judge by his/her response below, nor does Nrets. In addition to the figures being unclear, the writing is unclear too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a far reaching reference to increase the availability of primates in research. One portion of that was increasing the size of breeding colonies. Another was increasing quarantine resources for imported animals. But the main point was the NCRR intended to "increase availability of NHPs for research", not simply to increase breeding colonies. Somehow, although you found it pertinent that the NCRR intended to increase breeding colonies, you did not find their quoted rationale relevant, another example of your clear POV cherry-picking. signed, anonymous animal researcher

68.220.69.39 01:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, should we revert the changes then? Nrets 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

SV, The categories are clearly explained and the paragraph is readable. These are the categories used in any animal protocol. Anon's point is that not all animals are used for "experiments" but sometimes for breeding or in no pain inducing procedures. As he points out, it is important to focus on all animal use, not only on that which supports the anti-research POV. Nrets 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was not my point. My point was that if I do an experiment on an animal that takes two years, the animal will be counted in the USDA census each year because the census counts the number of animals associated with IACUC approved protocols. In fact, there are further errors than that. If I transfer from one institution to the next, each institution will count the animals I transfer. As to animal use, the current page says "Over 90,000 were reported to have experienced "unrelieved pain or distress."". This is the listing of USDA Category E animals. The 1988 numbers do not list USDA category C or USDA category D numbers. Category C is animals that do not experience pain or distress as part of experiments, and consistute the majority of USDA census numbers. Category D animals undergo procedures that would cause pain and/or distress, but it is relieved by analgesia or anesthesia. You have reverted to a version that includes the 1988 Category E numbers, but not the Category C and D numbers. From a neutral POV all are equally useful and informative, but animal rights activists only single out the Category E numbers because they find them the most controversial. My edits removed all the 1988 numbers (the table instead), and mentioned the fraction falling in each category in 2004 as well as the absolute number of category E animals. --signed, anonymous animal researcher

68.220.69.39 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where I'm saying we should only focus on certain uses. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked again and I see no mention of breeding in his figures. Animals kept for breeding are not counted in the usual figures.

And what does this mean? "Many animals are used for consecutive years and counted in the census each year, so the actual number of animals used for research is less than the sum of the census counts each year." Animals are not counted more than once if re-used, at least not in the UK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Animals may be counted more than once in one year if they transfer institutions, or once each in consecutive years if they are used for more than one year. I use animals for multiple years, they count in the USDA census each year. The census numbers are presented. A naive observer doesn't necessarily understand that each institution counts all animals on any of its protocols each year, and submits that list to the USDA for summary. The USDA wants to know how many animals are in use for its census, and not how many animals have been acquired or killed than year. That is why it is called the "Animal Use Census"--signed, anonymous animal researcher.

68.220.69.39 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to provide sources for everything that you're saying, and then make clear that it applies only to the U.S., or wherever else it applies to. This is an example of my concern. I feel you're engaged in original research here. Please read that policy page, WP:NOR, very carefully. Even if you're using sources, you may still be synthesizing the material in a way that would be a policy violation.

Also, if what you're saying is true — that animals are counted more than once in the U.S. — it means no one there would have a clue how many individual animals are in use. That doesn't make any sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is true. It is a census. If you have lived long enough, you may have featured in two human censuses. You don't get discounted from the second one just because you were also in the first. There are also lots of idiosyncrasies in the British system that means animals can get counted twice (or sometime even not at all, due to certain technicalities). Sadly the annual hoo-ha from the antis the accompanies the release of animal numbers means that there is a drive towards using techniques that can exempt animals from being counted, i.e. gaming the system to make it appear better, rather than actually using techniques that would be most appropriate for that animal's welfare. An example of how counter-productive the hardline approach, that much of the animal lib movement takes to research, is. But i digress.

I also happen to agree with the removal of the comments about the Oxford lab and others, especially now we have evidence of firm policy that says there are plans to increase NHP use. Providing the Oxford info in relation to a discussion about numbers makes no sense to me. Its all supposition that it would house any more primates than Oxford already does, and even if it did, the number would be entirely inconsequential to the overall trend. I happen to know of a primate centre that is downsizing in Scotland, perhaps we should include this information to the balance sheet also? It gets ludicrous. The rest of this section is focussed on discussing what animals are used, for what purpose and how many. It would be nice, for the sake of clarity, to bring the NHP section into line with that. Criticisms of the "culture" of primate use (though i don't know what that means) would be much better elsewhere. In terms of the hard data Nrets talks about below, normally i would prefer to avoid raw tables. However, there is clealy going to be problems communicating that info in a simple manner (i agree with SV that the content Anon contributed was not entirely clear) so perhaps that would be best. Either way, this data is clearly both more appropriate and informative that what was there before, so it should be incorporated somehow. I don't believe it is OR. I guess i'm proposing that we work with Anon to improve the article, by refining and improving his or her contributions, rather than dismissing the content wholesale. Irrespective of his/her declared POV, i'm happy he or she knows how to write neutral, sourced content (as any good scientist should). Rockpocket 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RP, see my comments below. This is as clear a case of OR as I've seen. He is picking and choosing figures for his table that support his view, and ignoring others. In addition, the writing is very unclear; not just the figures. I strongly object to these edits, and I'd appreciate it if he would use secondary sources only from now on. No more interpreting primary-source material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest then starting by including the table, which has hard data, is easy to read, and speaks for itself. I think RP would also agree to this, but I can't speak for hm of course. Nrets 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't speak for itself, and it's OR because he's selecting which species and which years to highlight, from one country only, in order to show a consistent downward trend. Below I've chosen other years from the same table, just for dogs as an example:

• 1973 — 195,157
• 1979 — 211,104
• 1984 — 201,936
• 1989 — 156,443
• 1994 — 101,090
• 2003 — 67,825

What does that show? Also, he's now saying some animals are used more than once (but he has no idea how many) so these figures are useless anyway, if he's right. And if he's wrong, it means he's not familiar with the subject. Either way, it's problematic.

And look at the "other covered animals": they have increased from 38,000 in 1973 to 200,000 in 1973. Farm animals have increased from 66,000 in 1990 to 166,000 in 2003. Primates have increased. [1] In the UK, they're saying the same thing: animal use overall is on the increase. [2]

Let's link to the information so that readers can see it all, and if we quote any, we should quote secondary sources. Primary source material is notoriously easy to misinterpret. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmmm. I incorrectly assumed these were the complete set of numbers provided in the source, i didn't realise they were selected. My mistake. Perhaps Anon could explain why he or she chose those particular years. I must say i'm a bit disappointed by that. As a researcher, Anon must be very aware that if one has to select data to illustrate a point, the point is not usually valid. Still, i'll WP:AGF, and await justification of those years.

In any case, they either have to be reproduced completely or left out. The ideal situation, as SV suggests, would be to have a second party source analyse the data for us. I'm sorry also, SV, for questioning your reverting of this, had i bothered to read the source i would have done the same. Another wiki-lesson learned. I now notice an example of when a pro-research group says something it is attributed, but when an anti-group counter, it is a fact. I'm going to even this out, as i think it reads better this way also. As for the Oxford, thing. Its not worth revert warring over, but i do hope you'll reflect on quite how relevent that really is to the point at hand, Slim. Rockpocket 06:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RP. Re: the Oxford thing, I'll look for a reliable secondary source who makes that point (or uses Oxford to illustrate the point), and if I can't find one, I'll remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I selected the first year available, even decade-years, and the last year available. I did not even look at the numbers in each year's entry as part of that selection process. I also selected the species of dogs, cats, and non-human primates. I did this because I felt any reasonable reader who looked at the original data would also see these trends, which does not make it OR, and because I felt complete reproduction of the table would take too much space to make the same obvious trend obvious. Perhaps if you go through the numbers in the table you would also find them obvious. Every single species in the table except NHP has halved in animal census numbers in the last 20 years. The catch-all other covered species I do not know about, but I do know that some things that didn't use to fall under the AWA now does. And, I am not even trying to say animal use is decreasing, per se, just that AWA species use (except NHP) is clearly decreasing (I think rodent use increase more than accounts for the AWA covered species decreases). I could, alternately, make a graph of the same numbers and include all the entries, which wouldn't take too much space, but would speak for itself on the trends. -signed, anonymous animal researcher

I think a graph would be a great idea to show the trends. We could either include all species listed, or only the ones talked about in the article. The trends are the same as in the table, even without the intervening datapoints. So I don't see how this changes things. Nrets 14:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Graph

Here is that graph. This contains all the table entries EXCEPT the summary of all animals (which is just the sum for each year of the data that is shown). The trend for reduction since the late 80s is clear for the single species entries of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits, but not for primates, farm animals, or other covered species. I'd be happy to include this, or any subset of it, or a re-done version, etc, open to discussion. I'd be happiest to include the graph as is but without the "other covered species" because it is unclear exactly what they consist of and the data varies a lot from year to year, but I do not want to engage in OR. I think this data is an important part of the overall picture. The numbers are clearly changing for some species, whereas no clear trend is present for other.

--Animalresearcher 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nice! I wonder what happened in the early nineties that caused the spike in "other species"? I like the graph, here are some suggestions for making it easier to read: 1)Remove the gridlines, 2) Use solid plot symbols, circles are nice, and use different colors rather than different symbols. 3) Add the total data, to show a general trend. 4)Make the axes more obvious (ie. in the Y axis label it USDA Animal Use Population (in hundred thousands) - or something like it rather than having to look for the 10x5 in the corner. Anyway, these are just some suggestions, I think it looks great and is very informative and telling about the role the AWA played in reducing use of selected species. The other intresting bit, is that the downward trend really started in 1985, when the was a big amendment to the AWA. I wonder if we can find a ref that talks about this correlation. Nrets 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First, this is once again OR. If we want to reproduce a graph, let's find one from a secondary source. Second, how is this graph informative? The anon is saying that some of these animals, but he has no idea how many, or which species, are counted more than once, but he doesn't know when that started, or how often they're counted. So what use are the figures?

I have to stress again: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the anon gets his views published elsewhere first, then we can use them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Graphing a table of cited numbers, in its entirety, is not OR.

WP:NOR "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." --Animalresearcher 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that, I fail to see how SV thinks this graph is not useful or informative? It shows overall trends in animal usage plain and simple. We can write what exactly the figures are (results of a yearly census) to make it clear that it refers to animals "in use". Nrets 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Could one of you address the point I've raised three times? If the animals are used more than once, but we don't know how many, how many times, since when, or which species, what use are the figures, and hence, what use is the graph?

Secondly, it is OR. Read the policy page properly, and don't (as you're doing elsewhere) cherry pick: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." (my emphasis) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I've seen such plots dismissed as OR before, but i've also seen them included. I don't think consensus is entirely clear on it. Personally i think plotting a data table it is no more OR than paraphrasing some one elses comments for style, and that happens all the time. Providing the data in a transposed format is one thing, analysing it is something completely different.

On that note, I don't think we can plot this and say "there is a downward/upward/no trend" without a secondary source that we can quote, however. That sort of primary analysis does seem like OR to me. The plot as a stand alone point of information, allowing the reader to make their own conclusions, i think it is informative and not OR. I'm not sure i buy SV's argument about why the figures are no use. Human census figures have all sorts of errors, but it doesn't make them uninformative. There is no reason to assume that the double counts would significantly vary from year to year (at least not out of proportion to the overall numbers), thus the relative differences are still informative. In addition, every single published measurement of animal use is subject to such caveats. Thus we either reduce all mention of numbers in the entire article (as we cannot be sure they are accurate to the single animal) or this argument falls down. These numbers in their entirety, though not perfect, are the best approximation of relative animal use we have. I think that gives them intrinsic value, and turning the raw table into a plot is simply a more accesible way to provide that information. Finally, in regard to the Oxford thing - that seems an entirely reasonable way of resolving this, SV. If it has been quoted in specific reference to increasing primate numbers in the UK then i agree it should stay. Rockpocket 17:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RP, Animalresearcher says that some animals are counted multiple times, not just twice. He doesn't know which species; or how many times they are counted; or when this started; or whether anyone else knows this. Therefore, what do the figures actually show? If they are not useless, would someone please explain to me exactly what they show?

Human census figures would be useless too if we were allowed to run from house to house while filling in our forms, adding our names to each household before signing Animalresearcher is not saying there are "all sorts of errors." He is saying the figures are fundamentally pointless, because some animals are counted once, some twice, some three times, and he has no idea which are which.

Every measurement of animals is not subject to that caveat, RP. Animals in the UK, for example, are only counted once, even if used more than once. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not so, SV. Have you ever filled in an animal return or worked in a vivarium? I'd suggest not, as your understanding of how the system works is a little naive. Let me give you an example. I breed some transgenic mice. I tail tip these mice to determine their genotype so i know which ones i can use and which ones i cannot. When i do that, a procedure, i record these mice for my animal returns at the end of the year. Say i then get a request for some mice for a collaborator elsewhere in the UK. I ship a few to him. He then takes these mice and carries out a procedure on them. There is a very good chance that he will count these animals on his return (in theory he should probably contact me to determine whether i had carried out a procedure or a non procedural method of genotyping, and thus whether I am counting them, but in practice that would never happen). Thus same animal is counted twice. The analogy would be if France and the UK carried out a census in the same year. If i move between those two countries between the censuses then i would be counted on both. If we than tally the censuses to approximate the population of Europe (which is how we would get that number), i would be counted twice. This doesn't make this, as a figure for the population of Europe, "fundamentally pointless". It simply means that the system is not a perfect counting mechanism. Having worked both in the UK and US, i can tell you this happens in both counties, albeit with minimal overall impact, as animals that are transferred are a tiny proportion of all animals in use. Its also more likely to result in an over estimation rather than an underestimation.

The other way animals are counted twice is due to survival. In this case they will not be counted twice in a single year, but a single animal will be represented in two or more sequential censuses. This, too, happens in human censuses (i myself have been counted in two), and these are perfectly acceptable for determining trends in human population. This caveat pretty much only influences the numbers of NHPs, though (as a larger proportion of them will be involved in longer studies, very few mice would make it into two or more annual censuses). Thus the NHP number should not be taken, in additive manner, as an approximation the number of animals killed (as we can do with other animals), but instead an approximation of the number of animals in use in any given year. This does not make it useless, it is still highly informative over a 30 year period to determine whether numbers are on the rise of fall (just as we do with humans censuses). But it should be noted as such, otherwise the total number of NHPs could be grossly overestimated.

Its actually very simple, SV. To summarise: they show a pretty accurate value for the number of animals that have undergone (what is defined as) an experimental procedure in any given year. With the exception of NHPs, they can probably be used, in an additive manner, as an approximation of the total number of animals experimented on. They also act as a measure for change in the number of animals used in discrete 12 month periods. Thus they indicate trends well and work in the exact same was as human censuses do, except the population tunrover is highly accelerated. I hope that makes it clearer. Rockpocket 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Each institution makes a good faith effort to report to the USDA each covered species animal that has been listed on an IACUC protocol each year. The counting of animals multiple times in the same year is extremely rare, because transferring animals from one institution to another, while under protocol, is extremely rare. But this will occur if an investigator changes universities. The appearance of the same animal on the census for multiple years is far more common, because the animal use often occurs within 2 or more counting periods. But this is not an error, this is counting animal use numbers, and not "animals used" numbers. --Animalresearcher 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The text refers to the AW report table. The graph is NOT analysis or synthesis. An analysis would be performing statistics to determine if a trend existed. I am not suggesting that. I am only suggesting the exact same numbers in the table be shown in a graph instead. There is no new data not already in the AWreport2004. My suggestion to include the partial table was for the same reason, that the numbers indicate an obvious trend, and any inclusion of any timeline of these numbers will make the trend obvious. I agree that to avoid OR that mention of a trend should not be included unless there is a secondary source. Further, I think the text should be clear these numbers only refer to AWA species, only in the USA, and do not incorporate populations of rats, mice, or non-mammals. I further think the current WIKI page is UNCLEAR on this point, that the first paragraph of this section, titled "NUMBERS", lists a USDA census number as an estimate of all research animals. I had corrected this point also, but you backed out that change. I am not pushing an agenda on this, I have spent a great deal of time dealing with USDA issues, and this data trend is clear, obvious, and interesting no matter your background. I further would also not oppose clarification that these numbers do not indicate the actual number of research animals has decreased because they are a subset of animals in use. --Animalresearcher 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As to how many animals are counted multiple times, I can only guess, I have not found any source. But my estimate is most primates are counted in a census 2-3 times, each Guinea Pig or Rabbit 1 time (they don't live that long and are not used in the same sort of studies). But this issue is a problem in interpreting ALL USDA Census Numbers. They indicate animals in use, not animals used up. This point should be clear. I would not suggest, as you do, that the WIKI page throw out all USDA Census Numbers because they are counts of animals in use, and not animals used up. --Animalresearcher 17:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And when I say "counted multiple times", I mean the largest potential source of confusion, an animal counted in the census multiple years in a row. Animals transferring institutions is comparably very rare. --Animalresearcher 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So if some animals are counted twice, some three times, and so on, and we don't know which is which, and we don't know when that started, and we also don't know whether they were previously used less than they are now, or vice versa, we are left with no way of analysing the figures. In other words, if in 2005, we had four dogs in use, and in 2006, we had only one, does that mean we are no longer hurting dogs as much as we used to; or does it mean we are doing four times the number of horrible things to that one dog? This discussion is exactly what the pro-testing lobby groups try to do all the time — throw out percentages and graphs and categories and jargon in order to obfuscate, either deliberately or perhaps because they genuinely miss the point.

Please find a graph that has been published already, and link to it. Or make your own graph based on the published graph. All our material has to be attributable to a third-party, published source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I am an animal researcher, I am not associated with any "lobby" effort per se. The section is on numbers of animals in animal testing. The USDA provides the best numbers available for the covered species in the USA. The page should report those numbers, and what those numbers mean. The graph is extremely useful in that regard. I don't know how you'd presume putting actual counts of animals in use in a section on the number of animals in use constitutes pro-testing lobbying. --Animalresearcher 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel as though I'm banging my head against a wall here. You wrote above: "The page should report those numbers, and what those numbers mean." Fine. Tell me: What do those numbers mean? And how do you extrapolate that meaning from those figures, given the multiple-use issue? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The USDA Table is titled "Number of Animals Used by Research From the First Reporting Year (FY 1973) to the Present". The only citation on the meaning of those numbers came from the American Physiological Society, which indicated the possibility that animals in long-term studies may be counted more than once.

"Another flaw in the assumption that the statistics represent trends is the fact that animals in long-term studies are almost certainly counted more than once." http://www.the-aps.org/pa/resources/bionews/animalNumbers.htm

This citation http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/quickfacts.htm plots the dog and cat numbers from the USDA census from 1973 to present, and claims their census numbers are decreasing. An actual citation and a graph which is clear secondary source OR. The page goes on to say that in 2000, 63% of research animals had "slight or momentary pain, such as an injection. Twenty-nine percent of the research procedures employed anesthesia and postoperative painkillers. In seven percent of the procedures, neither anesthesia nor pain medication could be used, as they would have interfered with research results. However, when this is the case, pain is minimized as much as possible." The citation is from fbresearch, a clear pro-testing lobby group. In any case, I was not suggesting taking secondary sources from clear POV groups like BUAV and FBResearch, but in providing raw numbers to the reader without interpretation. But if you would rather use directly cited POV secondary OR, they are available. I think these types of presentations border on dishonest, because I do not think the total number of animals in research in the USA has decreased since 1973 (but has shifted to rats and mice from rabbits, cats, dogs, guinea pigs, and hamsters), which is why I would rather present the raw numbers and associated definitions and caveats about non-covered species.--Animalresearcher 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The BUAV is partisan, but it is one of the oldest and most respected animal protection groups in the world, and they are very much regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia. I'm worried that you previously said it was well known that animals are used more than once, and you did it, and you also moved them between institutions, but now you say only that the APS indicated the possibility than animals are used more than once.

Look, I'm sorry, but we have to put a stop to this. The whole point of the OR provision is to avoid conversations like this. We don't know who are you. Even if we did, and even if you were a world expert on animal testing, the president of the BUAV himself, we still couldn't allow your material to go into WP unless it had already been published elsewhere. We are here to present published data, opinions, and arguments only. And the talk pages are to discuss which of this published material to insert into the article, not for a general discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Who I am is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article section is on the numbers of animals in use. The paragraph is on the number in use in the USA. A table, or a partial table, or the graph, are means to more easily organize the data in the AWReport 2004. Organizing primary source material is encouraged explicitly on the WP:NOR page. I brought up fbresearch and BUAV because I want to be clear that I do not like direct extracts from either, both process primary material with an agenda and produce OR that is strongly biased relative to my own beliefs. Nonetheless, you seem intent on preventing any presentation of this data, in graph, table, or cited form...you are blocking the inclusion of animal use numbers from a Wikipedia article on animal use numbers. --Animalresearcher 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim you are really trying to weasel your way into keeping this out of the article. The graph is based on published data, there are no inferences drawn, it clearly states that it shows the animals in use at any one time, and that's that. Where is the ambiguity? Again, you are in my view, being unreasonable. By saying you don't understand the numbers you are contradicting yourself, then as RP says, maybe we should remove ALL numbers in the article, since they are basically the same thing. Nrets 18:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You really need to give it a rest, Nrets. You wanted that material to be included even though you knew it was a partial list. You're the most partisan and least helpful editor on this page. You agree with all pro-testing material even when you clearly haven't understood it. As for me not agreeing with the information, read what I've written. I don't see what it's saying and I don't like the shenanigans that surrounded the compilation of the figures by AR. If I don't see what the figures are saying, how can I agree or disagree with them?? And if you think I'm an editor who keeps information I don't like out of articles even when they're well written and well-sourced, then you don't know my editing, and there isn't a single good editor on Wikipedia who is familiar with my editing who would agree with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodness Slim! Now you acuse people of shenanigans? The editor clearly stated why he used the time intervals he used. To allay the criticism of this, he then puts it in a graph with all the data included, basically illustrating the same result, and now you say it makes no sense despite the fact that you have used some of these very same numbers in your edits in ways that benefit your POV? Please tell me why you think the data on the graph is not well sourced? Nrets 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a failure of good faith. I am certainly not experienced with the WIKI process (getting there), and every failure I make it interpreted by SlimVirgin as bad faith. --Animalresearcher 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I will try to assume good faith and I'll try to help you. First, we edit according to WP:NPOV. What that means is that, on this page, animal testing is not regarded as a good or a necessary thing, as it may be in the world you're used to. It's also not regarded as a bad or an unnecessary thing. There is no default position, in other words.

Secondly, the NOR policy does not encourage the reorganization of primary source material. I'm one of the editors who helped to write the NOR policy and I'm very familiar with how it works, both in theory and in practise. The use of primary sources is permitted, but we have to be very careful how we do it, because interpreting primary-source material requires training, and it requires knowing a lot about the subject matter. Using reliable secondary sources is always preferred.

Third, our three content policies must be read in conjunction and should not be interpreted in isolation of one another. Therefore, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Our guideline WP:RS might also be helpful.

Fourth, the talk pages are for discussing the article, not for discussing people's personal opinions. No matter how well-informd you feel you are, your opinions are just that, your own. What the page is here for is to discuss issues that have appeared in published secondary sources that we may wish to add to the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish to add this content.

"The number of dogs and cat in biomedical research in the USA have declined 67% and 63% respectively, since 1973" http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/quickfacts.htm

Please avoid percentages. Give the figures instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish to change the listing of the 2002 numbers to 2004 numbers in the first sentence. I wish to change the enumeration of the number of animals in each species (1988 numbers) to 2004 numbers, which are the most recent available.

Okay, I have no objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish to change "Over 90,000 were reported to have experienced "unrelieved pain or distress." to "In 2004, the USDA reported over 86,000 animals in Category E, which means that experimental goals included pain and distress that could not be relieved. 399,000 animals were reported in Category D, which means that pain and distress would have been caused by experimental plan, but they were relieved by drugs. Over 615,000 animals in the USA in 2004 were in experiments that did not involve more than momentary pain and/or distress" http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/awreports/awreport2004.pdf

Could you please avoid using the USDA's vocabulary? You could write: Over 86,000 animals may have experienced unrelieved pain and distress; 399,000 may have experienced pain that was relieved by drugs; 615,000 may have experienced momentary pain or distress."

[3]

In the citation of the NCRR report, I wish to include that the increase in NHP usage is part of the goal "Enhance the development of and access to nonhuman models that are critical to understanding human health and responding to emerging health threats."

Alternately, that the NCRR is increasing availability of non-human primates "due to their essential role in biodefense, gene transfer research, and the increased risk of transmission of infectious agents to air travelers from remote areas around the globe.", and that this statement is part of their official policy statement.

--Animalresearcher 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I already added a reference to the NCRR thing, so I don't agree that it need expansion, and in addition, you don't know whether the increase is due to their strategic plan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the rodents? Without rats and mice, this graph is of pretty low value in indicating any increase or decrease in numbers of animals used in testing. Tell me to get back to work! 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This graph was related only to species covered under the Animal Welfare Act (thus it excludes rats and mice). The use of these would likely show an increase. Nrets 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is of low value. There is a species by species breakdown in the census. There is no reliable census on rats, mice, and non-mammals in the USA, there is simply no way to report it. The mammals other than rats and mice are, however, all counted. But anyway, the graph was dismissed as OR by SlimVirgin, and the accompanying table takes up too much space. --Animalresearcher 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Applied Research

Something i have been meaning to do for a long time, provide content for the third of the three type of animal research: pure, applied and product testing. So here is what i have so far. Its pretty biomedical orientated (as thats my expertise) and could perhaps benefit from a third example, but i can't think of one at the moment. If it gets incorporated then i think the pure research could be trimmed a little, and I have no problems with trimming this either. Do your worst:

Applied research aims to solve specific and practical problems, often relating to the treatment or cure of disease and disorder in humans and other animals. Compared to pure research, which is largely academic in origin, applied research programmes are more likely to be carried out in the pharmaceutical industry, or in universities in commercial partnership. These may involve the use of animal models of disease or condition, which are often discovered or generated by pure research programmes. In turn, such applied studies may be an early stage in the modern drug discovery process. Examples of animal use in applied research include:

• Genetic modification of animals to study disease. Transgenic animals have specific genes inserted, modified or removed, with the aim of modelling a specific condition. The aim of these models may be to exactly mimic a known single gene disorder, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy or albinism, then use the model to investigate novel ways it may be treated. Other models are generated to approximate complex, multifactorial disease with a genetic component, such as cancer or Alzheimer's disease, then investigate how and why the disease develops. The vast majority of transgenic models of disease are mice [4], the mammalian species in which genetic modification is most efficient, though there are smaller numbers of other animals such as rats, sheep and pigs [5]. Pharmaceutical companies [6], medical research institutes [7], politicians [8], scientists [9] and professional research bodies widely endorse these techniques, describing an "explosion of research on such disease models" [10] resulting in "an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new medicines" [11]. However, animal rights and welfare groups regularly question the value and effectiveness of transgenic techniques, [12] [13] as animals to not always model human diseases accurately [14] or in their entirety. [15] [16] Public interest group, GeneWatch UK, reports that genetic modification is "highly inefficient, wasteful of animal lives" and calls for "balancing the needs of people for drugs with the welfare and integrity of animal species." [17]

• Studies on models of naturally occuring disease and condition. Certain domestic and wild animals have a natural propensity or predisposition for certain conditions that are also found in humans. Cats, for example are used as a model to develop immunodeficiency virus vaccines due to their natural predisposition to FIV infection [18]. Their infection with a related feline virus, FeLV, makes cats a common model for leukemia research also. [19] Certain breeds of dog suffer from narcolepsy [20] [21] (video) making them the major model used to study the human condition. Armadillos and humans are among only a few animal species that naturally suffer from leprosy [22]. As it cannot yet be grown in culture, armadillos are the primary source of bacilli used in leprosy vaccines. [23] Non human primates, being closely related to humans, are applied in the study of a number of human conditions, including visual disorders [24] [25] and dental disease [26]. Primates are also used extensively in immunology [27] and reproductive studies [28] [29], a synthesis of which resulted in the discovery of the Rhesus factor and its importance in hemolytic disease of the newborn.

Rockpocket 09:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, RP, that is excellent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

RP, that sounds good. Maybe a third example of non-biomed oriented applied research could be sudies funded by the US Navy to study echolocation and undersea communication by dolphins and whales in the wild. This might count as applied research since this can be used to evelop new SONAR technologies, or for environmental conservation purposes to identify areas that need to be protected, see here [30]. Just a thought. Nrets 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be good, Nrets. Application to non medical purposes is pretty widespread, and controversial, i just don't happen to know much about it. In addition to the nice dolphin example you mention, I can think of chimps being used to study sign language, animals in space and, historically, their use in developing things like helmets and other safety equipment. Rockpocket 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's some footage of baboons being used to develop safety equipment: as I recall one of the intended applications of this was helmets for football players. *Part 1 *Part 2 *Part 3 *Part 4 *Part 5 SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, NHPs have not been used to test safety equipment since the early 80's. I found a few studies citing primate research for the development of bicycle helmets to prevent traumatic head injury in children, but the studies were 20+ years old. Most current studies I found either use actual cases of people with head injuries, or use the old primate data to devise computer models of head trauma to improve helmet design. If anything this is a good example of animal research that has been phased out once all the pertinent data was obtained. Do you know of any current studies that still use actual primates? Finally, what does this have anything to do with dolphins? Nrets 01:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are right, i think (hence my use of the term "historical" above). That it doesn't happen much anymore (or at all, as much as i am aware) doesn't mean that it can't be used as an example as long as it is clear it is historical. It doesn't have anything to do with dolphins per se, bit was another example of using animals for applied studies that are not directly biomedical in aim. Still, it might not be the best example. There may be other more widespread application in environmental research. Rockpocket 04:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, I had missed that line in your comment. My mistake. Anyway, I'll look for some good examples, write 'em up and post them here for comment. Nrets 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

SV, if you insist on saying applied researchis purely commercial, please provide a reference. Also, if you read RPs examples, only a few have direct commerical applications. By all accounts these are still applied research. The definition of applied research I found is: "3.6 Two, applied research — research directed towards specific applications (except assessment of toxicity, discussed below). This includes, but is not limited to, research involving "the prevention…or the diagnosis or treatment of disease, ill-health or abnormality, or their effects, in man, animals or plants". Applied research also includes the use of animals in the manufacture and testing of vaccines and the "pharming" of animals — animals which might be used to create pharmaceutical products in their milk." [31]. My interpretation of this definition is that it need not be commercial. Nrets 17:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Nrets. Applied research most certainly does not equal commercial research exclusively; this according to the wiki article on the subject. I would very much like to see the sources that states that. It might be prudent to introduce a sentence in the transgenic paragraph about Pharming also. Rockpocket 02:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I believe the Home Office defines it that way. I'll look for a cite. What kind of application wouldn't be commercial? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well i guess hit comes down to how strictly you define commercial. Consider the work of Julia Dorin on cystic fibrosis [32] [33] (a cause célèbre among the antis due to her CF mouse not recapitualiting the human phenotype exactly). Her work is certainly applied research, yet like pretty much all the the research at the Medical Research Council in the UK, it is government funded and free of commercial or industrial influence.

Obviously, there is potential commercial benefit if she is able to 'cure' CF, but that benefit (as per the MRC charter) must be to the UK population which funds the research. In other words, the ultimate aim of her research is "improving the health and quality of life of the UK public and contributing to the wealth of the nation." [34]. If that qualifies as commercial, then all MRC research (and NIH research) must and there is little point making any distinction between basic and applied. My understanding of the situation would be to say that applied research has more obvious and/or direct commercial implications than basic research as its aimed at solving a practical problem rather than generating knowledge. Rockpocket 01:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is too cynical to say that all medically-related research is commercial. From the definition I posted above, which is from the British Parliament (is this different than the Home Office's definition?) it is very clear that it need not be commercial. Of course you could find a commercial use for almost anything, ultimately, but I think the case here is whether the research is directly intendend to result in a commercial product, and as you say, most government funded research does not. WHich goes back to my original (a long time ago) statment that maybe one way to split the article is to talk about commercial aspects of testing - product testing, etc. and animal research. I think many people who might object to wearing fur, testing of cosmetics, or to factory farming will not necessarily object to research involving animals for medical or scientific benefit. The moral resons are very different as are the arguments, yet this article lumps everything together, making all of these things equivalent, leaving no room for gray areas, where most people would find themselves. Nrets 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Studies in the wild

After my last post I was thinking that wouldn't studies of animals in the wild, or in nature preserves, also come under Animal Research? Particularily when animals are periodically captured for attaching tracking devices or to monitor health. When I'm a bit less busy I'll look into adding a section about this aspect of animal research. What do people think? Nrets 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is something that has always puzzled me, where is the line between conservation research, with the principle aim of helping animals, and animal research drawn. For example does tagging and/or culling for population or conservation studies count as applied research? Also, experiments aimed at understanding how animals behave in the wild, which increases our overall knowledge (a type of pure research), but also has practical applications for protecting them (applied conservation) seems to bridge all three. I don't know - and it must be a tricky one for the animal lib people too: is it wrong to use an animal in an experiment if the outcome results in improvement of the life of that specific, as well as many other, animals? This nice experiment is a good example of research using wild animals that i, personally, find it difficult to imagine that anyone could object to an any grounds - though i'm sure someone will ;) Rockpocket 04:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And that someone would be me :-) The objection to this kind of experiment is that it's completely unnecessary interference, and in fact it's a good example of the practise of science without common sense, where everything has to be "proven." No matter how many people were dying of cancer after smoking, the tobacco industry continued to insist that no causal connection had been established. This study smacks of the same ideology. Researchers have to observe animals teaching before they'll believe that animals teach. (But why wouldn't they?) The link you provided admits this: "The lack of evidence for teaching in species other than humans may reflect problems in producing unequivocal support for the occurrence of teaching, rather than the absence of teaching" (my emphasis). Ditto the whole argument about whether animals are self-conscious, whether they feel and anticipate pain and loneliness the way we do, and so on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a good example, RP. I was also thinking of experiments done on baboon populations in game preserves, where their social hierarchy is studied throughout their life. Periodically a baboon is captured for taking blood samples to measure levels of stress hormones and general health, and then let go. Dominant baboons usually have low levels of stress hormones and enjoy good health, whereas baboons lower in the social hierarchy suffer from chronic stress and adverse health effects associated with it. These studies have yielded lots of infromation about the adverse effects of chronic stress on health, plus provide conservationists more information about how to improve the welfare of the baboon troops. In a way it is hard to tell what constitutes studies of animals in the wild, since there is very little true wilderness left, and other than migrating birds or fish, most animals live in environments which are managed in one way or another and their populations monitored and controlled. Nrets 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Nrets, that is certainly applied research, and without any commercial objective either. In regard to your objection to that experiment, SV, and with fond respect, its pretty clear you are not a scientist! You say "But why wouldn't they?" and any scientist would immediately say "well, why would they?".

They say that when it suits them, RP. When they're making statements about how 99 percent of Nobel-prize research used animals, they're quite happy to leap to the conclusion that the animal use was necessary. Furthermore, the everything-must-be-proven argument isn't applied to what supposedly separate animals and human beings. You believe I'm conscious. In fact, you'd go so far as to say you know that I am. But, in fact, you do not. No scientist has produced any evidence that human beings are conscious, have minds, think, or whatever other words you want to use for what supposedly propels us. And yet, despite the lack of evidence, no one doubts that there is a significant difference between me and, say, a stone. And yet it is doubted for animals, despite there being no good argument (scientific or otherwise), let alone evidence, to support the notion that there's a difference in kind between my mind and the mind of a chimp. What scientists rely on, when they do their experiments, is — ironically enough — a religious belief, or one derived from religion, that human beings are somehow unique. Take that religious belief away, and what you have left is that you're hurting creatures who are able to feel that hurt, on behalf of other creatures who, you have decided for no reason you can explain properly, should not have to hurt. Not very scientific, it is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Common sense, by definition, is the application to the unknown by what we know of related situations. Common sense would tell you not to jump into a pool with a fearsome looking 2m long leopard shark, based on our understanding of how dangerous big sharks can be (principally from Jaws). However, research into leopard shark behaviour reveals they only eat small molluscs and are completely harmless to humans. In other words, what common sense informs is not always correct, and when we add "unnecessary" experiments to the sum of human knowledge our common sense gets refined so we can make better judgements in future. If you take this back to its logical conclusion, our common sense would still tell us that headaches could be best relieved by drilling holes in our head to relieve pressure. That was what we all believed a few hundred years ago until someone began to study blood flow to the brain.

Another example is Helicobacter pylori. Back in the 70s and 80s all the indictors seemed to suggest the stomach ulcers were caused solely by stress and lifestyle. This is what pretty much everyone believed and thus common sense told us to avoid stress if you wished to avoid getting an ulcer. In the face of criticism similar to yours ("Researchers have to observe animals teaching before they'll believe that animals teach") certain researchers wouldn't accept this was the cause unless they could directly observe how it happens. Two Australians toiled away and discovered that over 80% of ulcers are actually caused by a bacterium. The scientists won the Nobel Prize for Medicine last year, the citation noting, "their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas." If you don't ask the questions, irrespective how obvious they may appear, you'll never really know the answers and incorrect assumption will remain.

Anyway i digress again. Bottom line is that i guess animal experimentation is part of applied conversation efforts (and Nret's is a better example than mine, i'm not sure of the practical importance of teaching meerkats to eat scorpions) and thus could be mentioned somewhere. However, i don't think we should labour the point too much, as in the bigger picture it is quite a minor aspect of global testing. Rockpocket 19:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept your points, but scientists do not show "tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas," when it comes to their own ideology about animals, and any scientists who do question it are immediately labelled "one of them," and instantly not credible. Scientists do not challenge their own dogmas when it comes to the notion that human beings are somehow unique. That was the only point I was making above. Scientists, when it suits them, are remarkably unscientific.

Who has said humans are unique? That they can formulate complex language may make them unique in some respects, i suppose, but no more so than hummingbirds are unique in that they can fly backwards or fleas are unique in that they can jump however many times their own height. Most scientists - at least those who understand evolution - will tell you humans are not unique (in the superior sense of the word), they are just another species with many of their own characteristics and many that they share with other species. Of course we consider humans different from mice, but we also consider mice different from flies. The challange for us is to work out how we differ and how we don't from other species.

The other obvious difference is self awareness. Being human, i know how i react to certain situations and thus can approximate how you would (or i could simply ask you). I know what hurts me, and thus can pretty sure what hurts you pretty well. Clearly chimps differ from us in some ways. Not being a chimp myself, I simply cannot know how they differ and how they don't unless I study them. That is why we treat animals and human's differently. Rockpocket 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As for not accepting common sense, here's an example of a tragedy that results from a failure to use common sense: Pit of despair. A scientist removed baby monkeys from their mothers and placed them in a small dark chamber alone for months on end with no human or non-human company, or any other form of stimulus or comfort. They emerged depressed and psychotic. Conclusion? Removing babies from their mothers and leaving them alone in the dark for a long time can cause, erm, depression and psychosis.

You need to deploy common sense in the first place to be able to work out which commonly held notions need to be challenged. And you need to be guided by some basic sense of morality, which people opposed to animal testing argue may be lacking in scientists who work with animals because, in doing so, they are damaging their moral antennae. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, i don't disagree with you there, there must be a level of morality in justifying any experiments. But you seem convinced that they think all scientists who work with animals are amoral, just because their morality does not equate with those of activists who oppose the practise. I, personally, think those who would save the live of a dog as soon as they would save a life of a child are morally skewed, but i wouldn't suggest they are "lacking" "some basic sense of morality". They just have a different moral code. That is their perogative and as far as they act within the law, i wouldn't begrudge them that. Predictably, i'm not afforded the same courtasy. The scientists i interact with give very careful and considered thought towards the legal experiments they do, and find it justifiable within their moral code to do so. Just because that decision is not the one an activist would make does not mean the scientists lack morals, they just have different morals. Your explanation does seem to suggest a remarkable level of intolerance in such activists. How narcissistic must they be to assert their moral code is superior, nay, exclusive? Rockpocket 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pit of Despair experiments led to environmental enrichment for non-human primates. Among other things, animals must be able to see and be in vocal contact with other animals of their species, unless there is a specific exception for the experiment, and animals must be housed with multiple animals per caging unit, unless there is a specific exception for the experiment. And the USDA is accepting fewer and fewer specific exceptions each year. With respect to differences between chimps and humans, let me start by saying I personally do not believe there are enormous categorical differences in ability to undergo pain and suffering. But, since you asked, chimps do not innately learn language. "Language" consists of syntax, word polymorphisms, and verbs, which may be interchangeably used to express ideas (that is a pretty munged linguist definition). Chimps have signals and calls, but they do not constitute language (no syntax, verbs, and polymorphisms). Some chimps have been taught language, and they learn a vocabulary of a few hundred words at most. Every normal human learns 500-fold more vocabulary than the best chimp ever studied, and there is avid debate on whether the vocabulary of the chimps even constitutes language. Language is one of the most complex psychological behaviors, and the best example of something that is uniquely human, in that only humans learn it normally, and all humans learn it, and they learn it without extraneous effort. There are even studies of isolated twin mutes who developped their own sign language without prompting, so with as few as 2 humans an entire language can develop. Chimps simply cannot learn or use language at a level comparable to a normal human 3 year old. Without specific training, they do not learn language at all. There is a clear categorical difference between humans and chimps in their language abilities.

Chimps also lack compassion for the lives of other species, and regularly hunt and kill non-threatening enemies in the wild. A few years ago two chimps at an animal facility badly mauled human visitors of a third chimp. The humans brought a birthday cake to the third chimp, who was formerly in their custody. The other chimps, apparently in a combined jealous rage, badly mauled the humans. In doing so, the chimps committed no crime, because animals are not accountable for their actions under law. However, they were shot dead to protect the humans. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/06/ferocity_of_chimpanzee_attack_stuns_medics_leaves_questions/

There are quite a lot of studies on the apes and monkeys and various measures of intelligence. Can they perceive themselves in a mirror (chimps can, most rhesus monkeys cannot, but my pet dog can)? Can they use tools (chimps, again, are much better than Rhesus monkeys - most Rhesus taught to use a tool fail to recognize the tool as an essential entity, and concentrate on the movement of their own body). As to how this factors into the debate on whether and how animals may be used to advance human and animal society, that is a complex question. --Animalresearcher 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit of digression from WIKI work. There is quite a lot of evidence that a chimp's brain is very different from a humans. I'd love to debate it with citations, but its too much digression and not relevant to this wikipage.

--Animalresearcher 14:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put up a debating page, you're welcome to create one in your user space e.g. User:Animalresearcher/debate (or whatever you want to call it), or I suppose you could also create a sub talk page for it e.g. Talk:Animal testing/chimps. I wasn't trying to stifle debate when I made that comment earlier; I just wanted to make sure it didn't engulf this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Long page

This article is really really long... It would be good if there was some combined effort to split off some of the sections. Otherwise, congrats to both 'sides' for the relatively NPOV and civil collaboration and good work so far. Tell me to get back to work! 03:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking myself that it was getting very long, and destined to get longer. It might be worth starting a discussion about how to split it up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I was thinking that now the (slightly) less contentious material about numbers of animals used and types of experiments carried out have been expanded they might be split from the more opinion driven theory, philosophy, criticism and support. I guess i can imagine two different type in inquiries: Do i wish to know the what animals are used for today, how many are used, and perhaps how it is regulated in practice (one article), Or do i wish to know they theory, philosophy, justification, criticism of the principle (another article).

On a organisation note, i like the content someone added about xenotransplantation, but it seems somewhat out of place under the numbers section, particularly the paragraph describing the criticism of it. How grisly the experiments are do not seem relevent to me if i want to know how many of each type of animal is used animals used. Might that not be better as an example of an applied research? Rockpocket 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking we could have a section on xenotransplantation, so I put that comment there only until such time as we do. In creating separate articles, we have to be careful not to create POV forks. In other words, we can't lump all the criticism into one place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine. I was not suggesting criticism be restricted to one, simply that the accountof and criticism of the practical aspects (i.e. the idea that transgenics are inefficient and that numbers are not recorded properly) are seperated from the criticism of the theoretical and philosophical aspects (i.e. its wrong to experiment on animals). Rockpocket 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that those separations can be made. At the core of the animal research debate is whether it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain. Animal rights activists say it is. They augment their arguments by showing a number of ways in which they believe animal research is unnecessary, both in theory and in practise, and that includes arguing that it is badly conducted, so the facts on the ground (e.g. the sloppiness) and the more philosophical objections are inextricably linked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the arguments are linked, otherwise they currently wouldn't be in the article together. The same argument could be made about the pro-case: both practical and empirical arguments and philosophical arguments are linked. However, if we are going to split it, we have to make a distinction somewhere. This seemed to me the most non controversial way of doing it. If this is unnacceptable, how you would suggest separating it instead? Rockpocket 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article, and that section, do not only cover the animal research debate . If there were a WIKI page on the animal research debate then I would agree it is fine as it. However, the second paragraph on xenotransplantation is very specifically on topic for "controversy" on animal testing. The xeno studies appear to use a large number of primates (1-2% of all in the UK), I think the first paragraph is fine where it is. The title seems to play a little favoritism - does every paragraph in that section deserve a title? But the second paragraph is very specifically on the topic of controversy and doesn't contribute to the section on numbers of animals in use. Right now it appears that the first paragraph is in there as a placeholder so that criticism of animal testing made be made more pervasively throughout the article. In fact, I'd think the best approach would be to take the first paragraph, and move it to the end of the paragraph that starts "Most primate use in the UK is in applied studies...". The second paragraph content could be added to types of studies, or controversy, or both. If not, we could add a third paragraph...

The FDA says "The development of xenotransplantation is, in part, driven by the fact that the demand for human organs for clinical transplantation far exceeds the supply. Currently ten patients die each day in the United States while on the waiting list to receive life-saving vital organ transplants. Moreover, recent evidence has suggested that transplantation of cells and tissues may be therapeutic for certain diseases such as neurodegenerative disorders and diabetes, where, again human materials are not usually available.",ref>[35]</ref>

This would move some distance to provide POV from both sides, but would equally be out of place in a section on numbers of animals in use. --Animalresearcher 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

A revisited suggestion on the intro. The last sentence of the second paragraph reads "Whether animal research was necessary to achieve these results has been questioned by animal rights groups [13] and critics of the animal model. [14]"

I find that criticism narrow. Specifically, it makes it sound as though all criticism would go away if everyone were sure the results were dependent on animal research, and that is clearly not the case. I was thinking something more like this...

Critics claim the work, irrespective of outcome, is unethical, animal welfare regulations in place do not result in adequate welfare, and advances from using the animal model are dubious.

--Animalresearcher 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood. That sentence is there only in response to the particular implication that the animal research was necessary for the Nobel prize research projects listed. It is there only to point out that the previous example begs the entire question. We're going to add a more complete anti-testing paragraph to the intro; it just hasn't been written yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I made another suggestion further up on the discussion page a week or so ago. I did not want to change the intro without some consensus. But the second paragraph starts by saying it is about the controversy over animal testing, and IMHO currently does a poor job of covering the salient points of both sides - most of which are cited and referenced already lower on the page.--Animalresearcher 17:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What's there at the moment reflects only the pro-testing side. The anti-testing side hasn't been written. Is there something about the pro-testing argument you'd like to change? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The arguments are somewhat anecdotal and/or strongly POV-centric. Instead of using FBResearch quotes and Nobel arguments, I would make the more basic point that legal bodies have found that progress from animal testing overweighs adverse effects on the animals, in the view of the legal system. This is the basic debate. Is there more benefit than cost? Opponents list their reasons why the cost is higher than benefits, proponents list their reasons benefits outweigh costs.

The topic is controversial, with supporters and opponents arguing about the benefits of conducting animal testing, and the adverse effects to the animals involved. In 1985, the US Congress placed into law the statement:"the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals"and has set up a limited system for regulating animal welfare in conduct of animal testing. Great Britain entered into law the 1986 Animals Act, allowing animal testing licenses determined by "weigh[ing] the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned against the benefit likely to accrue as a result of the programme", and otherwise providing regulation of animal welfare The Foundation for Biomedical Research has provided some analysis of the financial and medical benefits resulting from research that includes animal testing. Expansive lists of specific treatments developped using animal testing are available from the UK organization RDS

This would then go on to enumerate specific categories of arguments against animal testing, as I mentioned above. The arguments as I see them are 1) animal testing is unethical irrespective of any benefits 2) the benefits are not conclusively derived from the use of animals 3) animal welfare legal regulation is too sparse and not adequately enforced

Each of these can be cited easily as arguments from opponents of animal research.

--Animalresearcher 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Nobel Prize thing is weak as is the use of FBR. However, you're not arguing the case, but simply stating it. As I see it, the introduction should contain a paragraph of the strongest pro-testing arguments, and a paragraph on the strongest anti-testing ones. But they should be arguments. I like the House of Lords material because it contains three key arguments: (1) that human beings are regarded as morally or spiritually unique and therefore animals may be used to the benefit of humans; (2) there is a moral imperative to develop medical science for the relief of suffering; (3) animals may suffer less during experiments than humans would because they don't remember and anticipate pain in the same way.

These are strong arguments. It would be good if the other arguments could be brought out e.g. the use of animals is necessary because ... Who is the testing position's strongest scholarly advocate and what does he or she say about this?

And what other arguments are there? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The strongest pro-testing arguments focus on the benefits of animal research, and advances in animal welfare. I view the arguments that the British Parliament and the US Congress both codified into law the statements that animal research is useful to advance human society as strong arguments about the potential benefits - because these are representatively elected bodies forced to come to some consensus and elected by the masses. The pro testing side would say that animals are used regularly by humans, and have been for millenia, and that we weigh potential gain from animal testing against potential pain and suffering. The portion of a paragraph I included has a cite from RDS listing benefits, and an economic analysis from FDResearch on the economics of benefits of medical research that includes animals. The pro-testing side doesn't spend much time thinking about speciesism, even if that is the moral justification. They just don't think that much about moral justification because there are 2-3 million dogs and cats euthanized every year in the USA, 2-3 million deer hunted, and 150 million cattle killed for food. The use of animals in research is a pittance in comparison (in the pro-testing mentality) and is associated with perceived strong benefits compared to other animal use. And I particularly as an animal researcher, would NEVER EVER argue my animals have a reduced capacity to experience pain and suffering compared to humans. On any large mammal that is a very slippery statement (and one that would lose major points in any debate with someone who has actually read up on animal psychology). Maybe a jellyfish has a reduced capacity, but a dog or primate?

That is one of the arguments they use: that other mammals don't remember and anticipate suffering the way humans do, which is why the anti-testing lobby has to spend lots of time showing that they do. What species of animals do you use, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its use by the British Parliament is in context of a wide range of species. I might use it if discussing research on a sea slug or jellyfish. On a primate, never. This context is lost in its use in the introduction, and it is thus not an argument in the way that a pro-tester would present it. If anything, it looks to me, as a pro-tester, like a softball inserted there to make pro-testers look bad. I have, over a few decades, done experiments on dogs, cats, primates, humans, rats, fruit flies, and goldfish, not in that order. --Animalresearcher 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gill Langley has just written a report for BUAV called "Next of Kin," which I understands deals with that very point i.e. that primates suffer as we do, and yet are used as if they do not. If what you say is true, that researchers do realize they are dealing with creatures (e.g. dogs, primates), who experience and anticipate suffering the way human beings can, then you are describing them as monsters, because it doesn't stop them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of critical over-generalizations and errors in that report. The largest is ignoring legally required primate environmental enrichment which seeks to minimize emotional and mental distress over caging situations. Another large error is the constant focus on chimps, which are used only in extremely limited situations, and only in the USA (not Britain or the EU). ie: the author takes the primate with the highest cognition and the least use, and uses it to argue for the entire line of simians, many of which require little enrichment to show affect similar to animals in the wild. I doubt you will find a marmoset shows any emotional distress over caged housing so long as it gets a few mealworms to eat each day and has a few other marmosets in its cage. Enrichment addresses inequities among primates, some require more enrichment than others. OTOH, not all old world monkeys tolerate caging with reasonable affect, and some are not used in research for this reason. The situation is just far more complex than the BUAV report would allow. --68.220.69.144 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The strongest anti-testing arguments focus on the ethics without consideration of potential benefits (ie: the ends do not justify the means - morals have to be OK first), and attempt to reduce the pro-testing sides morals to an unjustifiable speciesism (as you have done above in trying to state the pro-testing sides). The anti-testers use clear examples of animal pain and suffering that is not apparently necessary or justifiable, and discuss ethics without mentioning potential benefits. The anti-testers use the term "vivisection" to draw attention to the fact that humans are cutting into living beings, and avoid the terms experiment or research which includes motivation to study or discover something. The anti-testers argue that you cannot prove the benefits required animals, and point at clear failings of the system in which animal testing led to treatments that did more harm than good (like dog derived insulin treatment).

In a sense, my opinion is that the strongest opinions USED by the two sides can be easily contrasted in the introduction, complete with citations. Although when asked to defend the position, the Parliament or an animal researcher may use the speciesism argument, it is not a strong point in favor of animal research. The animal researcher, if adept at debating, would always follow that with a comparison of the whole human use of animals to the scale of animal testing population (If we use 150 million cows for hamburgers and leather couches, can we use 50,000 primates to advance biomedical research?) That argument makes it sound like although we are speciesist, getting rid of speciesism has a huge set of consequences that go far beyond animal testing - consequences very very few people find acceptable. Far less than 1% of the population of the USA is vegan (probably closer to 0.1% true vegan), for example. In a sense, I almost think you could spend 2-3 days just reading FDResearch and RDS, and look at the legal structure, and come up with the pro-testing side, and then do the same with ALF, BUAV, PETA, to get the anti-testing arguments. --Animalresearcher 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The sofa versus research argument doesn't take into account the alleged torture of the lab animals. That is one of the major objections. But yes, I agree in general with your argument. Can you write the best pro-testing paragraph you can come up with, and post it here (if you have time, and there's no rush)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a different argument. An argument on speciesism can be reduced to an argument about all human use of animals, and this tack would be taken by any adept debater on the topic. Only 1 in 1000 people can accept stopping all human use of animals, so we can conclude speciesism is quite alright to most people. If speciesism is alright, then we have the system in law today, weighing benefits against costs on a case by case basis. As to the protesting paragraph, can do...--Animalresearcher 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There was debate at the Oxford Union not long ago between pro and antis, and their debates are usually high quality. I wonder if we could get transcripts and grab some arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the intro, i agree the Nobel Prize sentence is out of place there. Why don't we move it to the history section? Most of the examples are historic in nature and it gives a sense of (from the pro side) the empirical resasons why animal testing has been considered successful, and from the anti-side and sense of how entrenched animal testing is as a technique. Rockpocket 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your is a more complete representation of the criticsm. I think its fine to change it. Nrets 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Succinct pro-testing paragraph

Proponents of animal testing believe that many medical and non-medical advances in our society, both today as well as over the last century, have used animal testing in critical roles. In 1985, the US Congress placed into law the statement:"the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals." The Foundation for Biomedical Research has concluded that animal research played a critical role in medical advances saving Americans trillions just in the 1980s.. An expansive list of specific treatments developped using animal testing are available from the UK organization RDS. Although proponents believe animal testing provides great value to society, that does not address the morality of the practice. Proponents believe that the legal, moral and ethical justification for animal testing is similar to the justification for other human uses of animals. A British [[House of Lords]] report in 2002 wrote "the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes." A major, pervasive point in most proponent documents on animal testing is the preservation of animal welfare, which means that causing animals unnecessary or avoidable suffering is morally wrong, and in many cases illegal . --Animalresearcher 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of legislation ensuring test animal are treated humanely, in Britian at least. Should we mention that? Jefffire 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the citations at the end is to the 1986 Animals Act, which is the legislation under which animal welfare is regulated in the UK - and cost-benefit analyses. It was difficult to balance between the various important arguments that a proponent of animal testing would use. Animal Welfare is one, value of testing is another, moral justification is another. --Animalresearcher 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, AR, that's very helpful. Problems: the trillions bit isn't quoted accurately, and the RDS list isn't approriate (though you could add it to a footnote), and we can't use words like "concluded," as though it's true. We also can't say that animal welfare is important in animal testing as though it's true, so that has to be explicitly attributed. Also, anything argumentative has to go, so it would need a few tweaks. What do the other pro-testing editors (for the want of a better term) think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, SV, why we can't say that animal welfare is important in animal testing? It IS true since it would be illegal to test in animals without following the animal welfare guidelines set out by the law. Nrets 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It can be said, but it has to be attributed, because the anti-testing position is that the legislation is inadequate, and is anyway not properly enforced. A separate anti-testing position would be that no amount of legislation would be adequate, because if animal welfare were important, the experimentation would cease. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, where does your generalization come from that the animal welfare laws are not adequately enforced? In my experience the enforcement of animal care regulation usually exceeds the standards set by the law, and all the agencies regulating this enforcement are shown in the regulation sections. A link to a site showing examples of allegations of lax enforcement does not indicate that this is a widespread thing. As far as your second comment, it depends what you define as animal welfare. The animal walefare regulations are designed to look after just that, animal welfare, and therefore make animal welfare central to animal research. WHether you are of the opinion that these laws are inadequate, is a different issue. In any case, the paragraph states that animal welfare is pervasive in most proponent documents and dgoes on to cite those documents. So it IS adequately attributed. Nrets 20:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that proponents of animal testing do not hold animal welfare to be important. The concept of animal welfare is that unnecessary pain and suffering is to be avoided. Some animal rights groups specifically do not support animal welfare because it implies that animal testing may be carried out in a moral manner if unnecessary pain and suffering is avoided. I am quite sure no animal testing occurs anyplace in the USA or Europe that I am familiar with in which animal welfare is not a prevailing concept, both legally and morally. Can you find an example of documentation from proponents of animal testing that claim that animal testing should be carried out without regard to animal pain and suffering? As to enforcement of animal welfare laws, there are plenty of violations, the standards are moving, they are like other laws. Just because the law says do not drive over 55 MPH does not mean that no one does - it means that the state applies effort to enforcing the speed limit. --68.217.242.16 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It has to be explicitly attributed, because anti-testing people disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement: "A major, pervasive point in most proponent documents on animal testing is the preservation of animal welfare, which means that causing animals unnecessary or avoidable suffering is morally wrong, and in many cases illegal" Stems directly from the following sources, thus addressing your concerns:

• [http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm "Animal

Welfare Act]

• [http://www.awionline.org/ "Animal Welfare

Institute]

• [http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-xa.htm

"1986 Animals Act"]

• [http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/default.asp

"AVMA Animal Welfare Position Statement"]

• [http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=4&i_PageID=4

"RDS on animal welfare].

-Nrets 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The trillions bit says that FBR concludes that animal research played a critical role in the saving of trillions of dollars in health care costs. The cited page fairly accurately reflects that attribution. I am not using the words concluded as though animal research saved trillions, it is being used to say that research saved trillions, and the FBR concluded animal research played a critical role in that. The specific word they use linking the two (the savings and the animal research) is "unquestionable".

. We also can't say that animal welfare is important in animal testing as though it's true, so that has to be explicitly attributed. I gave citations to the major animal welfare laws in the USA and Britain, each of which also contains specific quotes on the legality of unnecessary pain, suffering, and/or distress. The American Veterinary association and RDS support this view specifically as well. As counterpoint, I do not believe you can find any solid source that says attention to unnecessary pain and suffering is not important, and all supporting legislation makes animal welfare statements of both moral and legal tone. A common counterargument is that enforcement is inadequate - we can find violations. Think if you applied the same logic to speeding laws. I found someone speeding, therefore enforcement is inadequate. That is just the way legal systems work. Another common counterargument is that the animal welfare laws do not take into account how the animals feel about the testing. That is true, animal welfare laws do not protect animals against testing, only against unnecessary pain and suffering involved in the process. However, that is central to "animal welfare" as opposed to "animal rights".

The list from RDS can be moved to a citation. --158.93.12.42 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Succinct paragraph v2

Proponents of animal testing believe that many medical and non-medical advances in our society, both today as well as over the last century, have used animal testing in critical roles. In 1985, the US Congress placed into law the statement:"the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals." The Foundation for Biomedical Research believes that animal research played an unquestionable role in medical advances saving Americans trillions just in the 1980s.. Although proponents believe animal testing provides great value to society, that does not address the morality of the practice. Proponents believe that the legal, moral and ethical justification for animal testing is similar to the justification for other human uses of animals. A British [[House of Lords]] report in 2002 wrote "the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes." A major point in proponent documents on animal testing is the preservation of animal welfare, which means that causing animals unnecessary or avoidable suffering is morally wrong, and in many cases illegal .

The issue that proponents believe in and support animal welfare is often attacked in counterpoint. Please understand, animal welfare makes exceptions, by definition, from pain and suffering necessary for experiments. Animal welfare doesn't necessarily make an experiment pleasant for an animal, it means that standards for housing and feeding and social behavior are made into law, and must be adhered to UNLESS the testing interferes with the welfare standard. The vast majority of people who object to animal testing do not believe in animal rights, they believe that animal welfare is inadequate, and the cost-benefit analysis doesn't place enough value on animal pain, suffering, distress, and/or life. Those standards have been changing in favor of the animals for several decades, and will continue to follow public sentiment on the matter. --Animalresearcher 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NHP use in xenotransplantation

I'd like to request that the section on NHP use in xenotransplantation be re-written. The title and second paragraph, in particular. The second paragraph belongs in a section on controversy, not on animal use numbers, it presents a clear POV that doesn't pertain to animal use numbers. The title just doesn't do a lot for me. The first paragraph looks perfect in that section by itself. The title mostly seems inconsistent with the rest of the section on animal numbers...why a title for xenotransplantation and not other things? Xenotranplantation seems also appropriate and relevant in the section on types of experiments. But the paragraph starting "Medical journalists..." doesn't contribute on the topic of number of animals, and does contribute strongly on the topic of controversy, it belongs there instead. --Animalresearcher 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I brought the same issue up here. Rockpocket 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Animal Research Advocacy groups

Hey, there is a box with animal rights people, and groups. Why not one for animal research advocacy groups ? This would be a start on such a list. It could be expanded to include notable individuals that fund animal research, such as Michael J. Fox Foundation, Ronald and Nancy Reagan Foundation, Christopher Reeve Foundation, etc.

RDS

Foundation for Biomedical Research

Patients Voice for Medical Advance

Americans for Medical Progress

Biomedical Research Education Trust

European Biomedical Research Association

Incurably Ill for Animal Research

The American Physiological Society

The Society for Neuroscience

Pro-test UK

Patient Advocates Against PETA

States United for Biomedical Research

American Psychological Society

Society of Toxicology

FASEB

Massachusetts Society for Medical Research

California Biomedical Research Association

Michigan Society for Medical Research

National Science Teacher Association

--Animalresearcher 13:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The major problem is that the vast majority of these do not have a Wikipedia article to link to. Rockpocket 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How about adding them to "Further Reading?"--Animalresearcher 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ethically disputed business practices or Category:Business ethics

moved from talk pages

Hi Nrets! In Animal testing, you just changed the former back to the latter, writing "rm cat, this page is not only about business practices". By the same argument, one could remove Category:Business ethics as well.

That said, I think I see what you mean. I probably didn't choose the right name for the category. What I meant was something like "Practices disputed in business ethics". My purpose was to give them a category on their own, because the main category already contained many organizations, laws, principles, crimes, individual cases and other articles. Do you have an idea for a name that would achieve this? Common Man 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I think "Ethically disputed business practices" is actually a very clear name, the reason I removed it, is that if you look at the article, only a small part of it is "business related". It also includes animal testing in terms of scientific research, medical research, etc., not just product testing. And yes, I think the category "Business ethics" is also out of place there, I just hadn't noticed it there. I think the title of the article is a bit misleading since, at least in the U.S., "Animal testing" usually implies testing of cosmetics and such on animals which is distinct from "Animal research", which is scientifically and medically related. In Britain, "Animal testing" seems to encompass both. Since most of the usual editors of that article appear to be British, the article is named "Animal testing". Nrets 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense - thanks. Besides, the article is already (indirectly) under Category:Ethics. Common Man 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)