Talk:Animal testing/Archive 8

Pain section

I'd like to know if anyone would consider adding a section on emotional pain or psychological damage (either intentionally induced or side effect) as a subtopic in this section?

I've removed this as it doesn't really seem to say anything:

The 1990 Assessment and Control of the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Laboratory Animals, to "aid communication between all those concerned with the use and welfare of laboratory animals", presents a detailed severity index metric for the operational assessing and controlling of pain and distress in laboratory animal procedures based on numerically assigned evaluations of the following considerations: consciousness, anesthesia, preparation, restraint, duration, tissue sensitivity, organ risk, mortality, pain, distress, deprivation, and frequency. Operational control of severity considerations include: management practices, psychosocial influences, disease, objective measurement and record keeping, training, procedure design practices, basic husbandry considerations, and planning for emergency and humane end-points for each procedure.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit jumbled, I don't think it adds much to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I added that to explain to the reader that "pain" is a complex subject that has numerous aspects and has distinct and seperate componets that are evaluated and weighed in the planning of animal experimentation and during the operational phase. For example the 1990 Assessment and Control of the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Laboratory Animals, was written to "aid communication between all those concerned with the use and welfare of laboratory animals" and it presents a detailed severity index metric for the operational assessing and controlling of pain and distress in laboratory animal procedures based on numerically assigned evaluations of the following considerations:

1. consciousness,
2. anesthesia,
3. preparation,
4. restraint,
5. duration,
6. tissue sensitivity,
7. organ risk,
8. mortality,
9. pain,
10. distress,
11. deprivation, and
12. frequency.

Operational control of severity considerations include:

1. management practices,
2. psychosocial influences,
3. disease,
4. objective measurement and record keeping,
5. training,
6. procedure design practices,
7. basic husbandry considerations, and
8. planning for emergency and humane end-points for each procedure.

I suppose the data is densely packed, but nowhere else in the article do we present any actual details about what the "on the ground" criteria are concerning pain management in animal testing. I think it is important not to just wave our hands and talk in complete generalities. The source is there for anyone who wishes to expand on or better understand the listed considerations. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I combined some refs in the lead and removed some blue to make it look less frantic. I also combined two pargraphs, and put the sentence "the topic is controversial" (which I changed to highly controversial) at the beginning of those paragraphs. Previously it had been at the start of the third paragraph, which suggested that only that paragraph - the anti-paragraph -- contained the controversial points, whereas it's both the pro and the anti positions that are controversial. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say that I also removed the thing about Nobel prizes, because it was really just repeating that these were major advances. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I don't see the point of saying in the lead that we're not including fruit flies, except in a footnote. We say vertebrates, and we link to what it means. And the lead is a summary of what the article is about, not what it's not about. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about animal testing, it is not about animal testing in vertebrates. Our coverage of animal testing in invertebrates needs to be expanded, if anything, due to the importance of this group of animals in current science. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about animal testing in vertebrates. When people talk of animals, they don't mean fruit flies. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, animal experimentation or "animal testing" as we dub it in this article is the use of animals in research. Insects are animals and they are used in research - hence they must be discussed in this article. The use of this inexact term "animal testing" as the title of this article is a constant problem, as noted many times above on this talk page, but since that is what we seem to be stuck with, that is what we have to work with. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at toxicology testing alone, there are a wealth of sources on the use of invertebrates in animal testing.

• Lagadic L, Caquet T (1998). "Invertebrates in testing of environmental chemicals: are they alternatives?". Environ. Health Perspect. 106 Suppl 2: 593–611. PMID 9599707.
• deFur PL (2004). "Use and role of invertebrate models in endocrine disruptor research and testing". ILAR J. 45 (4): 484–93. PMID 15454687.
• Williams PL, Anderson GL, Johnstone JL, Nunn AD, Tweedle MF, Wedeking P (2000). "Caenorhabditis elegans as an alternative animal species". J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A. 61 (8): 641–7. PMID 11132694.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Vogel EW, Graf U, Frei HJ, Nivard MM (1999). "The results of assays in Drosophila as indicators of exposure to carcinogens". IARC Sci. Publ. (146): 427–70. PMID 10353398.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

That is before you examine the importance of invertebrates in pure research, where flies and worms are by far the most important species. Is your argument for excluding invertebrates from this article that you think people don't usually consider flies as animals? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that the word "animal" does not include insects; that the sources who discuss animal testing don't dicuss insects; that the government bodies who regulate animal testing don't regulate the use of insects. We go with the sources on these issues. This article isn't about pure research; it is specifically about the issues surrounding animal testing, and there are no issues surrounding the use of insects. Perhaps there ought to be, but there just aren't. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, regarding your use of primary sources, you need to distinguish between sources that constitute animal research (the studies, the writing up and analysis of the studies), and sources who write about animal testing. It's the latter that are more useful in this article. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Animal - animals are a group of organisms that includes insects. People learn this at school, so I don't think our readers will be unaware of this.
2. The secondary sources I provide above (you will notice they are review articles if you read them) show clearly that sources that discuss "animal testing" and "animal experimentation" do discuss invertebrates.
3. The law is only a small part of this article which is instead discussed at Animal testing regulations.
4. Most importantly, this article is not about "the issues surrounding animal testing" it is about animal testing. This is the core of the problem we are having here - you wish to write about the controversy, not the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me a source that discusses animal testing and fruit flies -- not particular studies, or particular uses, but a meta-discussion on the role of the fruit fly in animal testing. Just one will do. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why the fly? - meta-discussion on the role of the fruit fly in animal experimentation.
• Nonmammalian Animal Models for Biomedical Research - Two chapters of this book deal with insects and crustaceans, respectively.
• The Experimental Animal in Biomedical Research - Chapter 1 deals with invertebrates.

You might also find these links interesting:

• Model organisms: The fruit fly - Historical background and current uses.
• Human Use of Non-Human Animals - a Biologist's View Looking at the importance of worms in animal experimentation and even examining the moral implications.
• How useful are animal models of human disease? Talks about both worms and flies.
• Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report Mentions flies, worms and fish as being particularly useful.
• WormBook - a guide to everything worm-related.

Couple these with almost one million Google Scholar hits for Drosophila and you have a very notable organism. As I said before, this article isn't about the controversy, it is about the subject. Flies and worms are vital to modern animal experimentation, we can't miss them out, and we probably need to talk about them more. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. You're right, and I take it back. I would have liked to read the one that looked at the moral implications (the interscience.wiley.com one), but it said I don't have cookies enabled, though I do. I'll try and fiddle with my browser later on to make it work. But otherwise, please do ahead and mention them in the lead if you want to. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I have a friend who works on Drosophila, she got very upset and angry when I once "dissed" her organism. Once you've listened to the impassioned defense of "why flies tell us everything we need to know" for half an hour it tends to stick in the memory! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You simply need to google the title, SV, though unless you have a subscription you will only be able to read the abstract. See also [1] [2] If you want I can try and get you a reprint of the wiley paper. Rockpocket 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll see what I can do to get it myself first, then maybe I'll ask you.

BTW, I'm hoping to add some material to the pain section later today or tomorrow, as I found quite a good discussion of some of the issues. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Tim, can you provide a source for "impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects ..." The page you linked to doesn't show it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The specific quote is "At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research." [3] Rockpocket 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why the quote was changed? No knowledgeable organization would say it is "impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And this is a quote from the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, not the United States National Academy of Sciences? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The ILAR "functions as a component of the National Academies to provide independent, objective advice to the federal government, the international biomedical research community, and the public." Basically it is the arm of the National Academy that deals with animal testing. Rockpocket 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. We should attribute the quote directly to them, in that case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have an article for them, and one should probably redirect to the academies page. The quote comes from a report from the National Academies. As with most of their reports, are prepared by one of their offices (in this case, the ILAR) [4] Rockpocket 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If we say "A National Academies of Sciences report" then we can link to the NAS article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some people also claim that it is unnecessary for animals to be used as research subjects and that computer or other nonanimal models could be used instead. In some cases this is true, and scientists strive to use computer models and other nonanimal methods whenever possible; however, many of the interactions that occur between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment are too complex for even the most sophisticated of computers to model. At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research." - edit conflict, its page 1 and 2. The longer quote might be better, what do people think? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you say why you changed it? -- because you changed its meaning too.

Also, who does this quote actually orginate with? See above. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, please provide a link showing where you got this -- a direct link to the page it is on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Googling "At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research." yeilded http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10733&page=1 Half is at the bottom and the other part is I assume on page 2 which Tim provided as his source above. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

NAS is one of the most authoritative sources you could possibly find on the subject, so I replaced a less-notable and important group with an opinion from one of the premier scientific organisations in he world. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there. If this is problematic, we could always use the Royal Society (they take a slightly different tone):

• "We have all benefited immensely from scientific research involving animals. From antibiotics and insulin to blood transfusions and treatments for cancer or HIV, virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended directly or indirectly on research on animals. The same is true for veterinary medicine. Modern biology, with all its contributions to the well-being of society, is heavily dependent on research on animals." [5]

• "Humans have benefited immensely from scientific research involving animals, with virtually every medical achievement in the past century reliant on the use of animals in some way. Developments in the treatment of diabetes, leukaemia and heart surgery transplants, amongst others, have been made possible through the use of animals in scientific research. The majority of the scientific community consider that the benefits that have been provided by the use of animals in research justify this use." [6]

Rockpocket 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd hate to choose between the two! Both are extremely authoritative, but since most of are readership are probably Americans, I'd be tempted to cater for parochialism. Especially since most people who have heard of the Royal Society will have probably have heard of the US-NAS, but possibly not the other way around? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Its just the the ILAR doesn't mean much to the average reader, unless you are aware it is an office of the NA. The alternative, I guess, is linking it and redirecting the ILAR page to the NAS. Which seems a bit weaselly. If we are going to do that we may as well just call it a NAS report. Rockpocket 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's from a book published by the ILAR, I thought. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Science, Medicine, and Animals and the Teacher's Guide were written by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research and published by the National Research Council of the National Academies." since the ILAR is "The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) is a program unit in The Division on Earth and Life Studies (DELS) of the National Academies." (see NAS organisational chart. So it was written by an organisation that is part of the US-NAS and published by the Academy. I can't see what is wrong with describing the report as "A National Academies of Sciences report" Tim Vickers (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what is wrong with it. First, it's not accurate. It was written by the ILAR, period. That they are part of this, or part of that, is irrelevant. Secondly, you want to name the umbrella organization because it will sound less POV. If it suited your POV, you'd be strongly arguing in favor of naming the original source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since almost all of our readers won't know that the ILAR are part of the National Academies, I took Rockpocket's excellent suggestion and substituted the Royal Society report instead. It is just as authoritiative, and hopefully there won't be any confusion about authorship. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about the quote; please answer

Tim, can you please answer the question about why you changed the quote? This is the kind of thing that poisons these pages and turns them needlessly into battlefields, so I would really like to pin it down. Do you honestly see no significant distinction between: "it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects," and "At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research"? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The two have the same meaning, since it is written in the present tense. It would change the meaning to say ""it has been impossible" or "It will be impossible" but saying "it is impossible" and "At present, it is impossible" means precisely the same thing. For the extension of the quote I thought that if it is "impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animals" whether this use is wide or narrow doesn't change the statement that it is impossible to do this without using animals. That interpretation is a bit less clear though, so you might be right that shortening that end of the quote was unwise. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"At present, it is impossible" does not mean the same as "it is impossible." It is impossible for 2 plus 2 to equal 4, and not only at present. Also, their claim that it is impossible for some aspects of research is clearly relevant, because even they concede that it is not currently impossible for all aspects of research.

Can you please in future stick very closely to what the sources say? There's no need to quote all the time, but they must be represented accurately, so that they would look at what you wrote, and would agree that they had said that thing.

All that's happening at the moment is that, because I know sources are not being represented well, I don't trust your edits, so I feel I have to check everything. This leads to endless back and forth between us, poisons this page, and makes us distrust each other. It would be great if I could know I didn't have to check your edits when I see your name crop up. Even if I disagree with something, I'm still able to recognize it as a quality edit (and welcome it), and similarly I can recognize a bad edit even if I agree with it (and don't welcome it). These disagreements I have with you have nothing to do with POV. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote changed again

The previous quote was good, because it's the first time we've actually had anything explanatory in the lead. It cited the source as saying: "'[a]t present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research,' because interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment are too complex for even very sophisticated computers to model."

The current quote goes back to say nothing, and seems to have been changed only to make the source sound more respectable, rather than with the aim of giving the reader information. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Your summary of the US-NAS report was quite informative. We can have both, without gaining any length, which fits quite well. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ILAR speaks for the National Academies in matters of laboratory animal research. They are composed of National Academy members (the council is, and there are additionally administrators who are not NAS members), and their mission is to prepare "authoritative reports" on subjects of importance to the animal care and use community for the National Academy of Science (among other things). Further, they also write the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" which has additional importance in that it defines the guidelines for IACUC function by law. The National Academies of Science do not speak about laboratory animal research EXCEPT through ILAR - that is its function. You can see that its mission statement says "ILAR functions as a component of the National Academies". It is fair to say that if ILAR publishes a report, then it is just as equally a National Academies report. There is no separablility between the two - ILAR is just the portion of the National Academies that works on issues related to animal testing. --Animalresearcher (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal welfare groups

Thinking about the notability of the groups we quote in the lead, I think WP:UNDUE should really apply here. Why are the opinions of the larger Animal welfare groups not cited. The US Humane society and the RSPCA are obvious examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How would their views be any different? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Americans For Medical Advancement doesn't seem a very notable group. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what the mainstream animal welfare groups say, their statements appear more balanced and less extreme than those of PETA and Americans For Medical Advancement. Describing the mainstream scientific view, while only describing the extremist animal welfare group position - and omitting the mainstream animal welfare groups statements - seems to be giving undue weight to a minority opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• "As do most scientists, The HSUS advocates an end to the use of animals in research and testing that is harmful to the animals. Accordingly, we strive to decrease and eventually eliminate harm to animals used for these purposes." HSUS Statement on Animals in Biomedical Research, Testing, and Education
• "The RSPCA adopts a constructive and practical approach, judging every issue individually, critically questioning the necessity and justification for animal use and striving to reduce the conflict between animals and science wherever possible." RSPCA Research animals home - Research animals

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Tim. All opponents of animal research will argue at least one of the following: that it's unnecessary, cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation.

Some argue all of these points; others focus on particular issues. That's why it was written this way. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried adding the RSPCA quote to show the range of opinion on this topic amongst the mainstream animal welfare groups. It seemed the less woolly of the two, and as this is certainly one of the most important of such groups, its nuanced position is very important. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it opposes animal testing, so please don't add it among the opposition opinions, unless you can find a clear statement that it does. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The article, and the lead, should summarise not only opposition to animal testing, but the positions of each notable group of people involved in the issue. The opinions of the more extreme abolitionist groups such as PETA should certainly be discussed in the article, but they should not be given undue weight. Both the RSPCA and the US-HS have clear positions on the issue, and these are very large and important groups of people. To cite Americans For Medical Advancement, which appears to be a one-man organisation, and ignore the largest animal welfare groups in the world, is inconsistent with our policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, how good to see you again. You always seem to turn up to help when we are having difficulties. What are your thoughts on this matter? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim, I hope you are being sincere. It seems to me that given the space constraints in the lead, we need to focus on just the two sides: pros and cons. The other, less clearly positioned groups can be detailed in the article body if needed. Hence the Welfare groups are not appropriate, as they don't add critical information. Crum375 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective, Crum375, but what do you think about my concern that giving prominence to the smaller and more extreme groups doesn't fit our policy on undue weight? That the largest animal welfare groups do not oppose animal testing on principle seems a very important piece of information. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is only the most notable welfare group in the UK; not even clearly the largest. It's not clear that they don't oppose animal testing, Tim. And it's not clear that they do. They don't really have a position because they don't have much to do with the subject, unlike the specialist groups. So it's odd that you would want to place them in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The issue is controversy, and to describe it in a summary fashion it is best to mention the opposing sides and their views. That there may be huge amounts of people with intermediate views does not shed light on the controversy. Crum375 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is right, Crum375, the subject of the Animal testing article is not "controversy", that would be the subject of the Animal testing controversy article. Here, we need to summarise for the reader the positions of the notable groups that have taken a position on the issue. Saying some support, some oppose in some cases, and some oppose in all cases, gives a good idea of the actual thoughts of the organisations involved, rather than presenting this incorrectly as a black-and-white issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The RSPCA isn't a notable group involved in animal testing. They have almost nothing to do with it, and it's not even clear what their position is. The controversy paragraph needs to summarize the controversy, obviously, which is arguments in favor, arguments against, in brief. By all means remove American thingies -- nothing hangs on their inclusion. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed them, the very definition of fringe! Since both organisations have position papers and large areas of their website devoted to the issue, they obviously have a view on the matter. What would you summarise this as, SV, reading the material I linked to above? We should be able to summarise this in a sentence or two. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The views in the final sentence of the lead need to be attributed. How about:

Animal testing is a controversial issue. Scientific societies such as The Royal Society support animal testing, arguing that is has been valuable in the past and remains necessary for some areas of current research. Some animal welfare groups, such as the RSPCA and the US humane society, aim for the eventual removal of animal testing and try to ensure that research is as humane as possible. Other groups, such as PETA, call for an immediate end to such research, arguing variously that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation."

Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections to substituting this into the lead? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer BUAV, because they specialize in testing, where PETA is a general animal rights group. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be very neutral and includes all viewpoints equally. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It also attributes all the viewpoints, which I think is also important. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As previously discussed, I don't see the difference between animal welfare groups and animal researchers — they both presumably believe the testing is justified and has to be done humanely. I think to clarify the controversy we need to describe both sides of the debate: pro and con. I don't see what the welfare groups add. Crum375 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This change shows the reader what various notable groups think about animal testing and attributes these opinions to each organisation. As I noted above, this isn't a black/white for/against issue. Edit - I added this section after reading SV's comment. If you object to it strongly Crumb375 we could remove it again and discuss this some more. What do you think? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My assumption is that there are many other groups, from all parts of society, with diverse opinions on this issue. But to clarify the controversy, all we need are the two clearly delineated sides. Crum375 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't list every possible position, and it seems particularly odd to want to include the RSPCA when they have never advanced a clear position, or had much to do with animal testing. Every organization claims to want to see the number of animals reduced, supporters and opponents, so to say that is to say nothing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right that the US Humane Society is a better example, considering their deep involvement in this issue. How about Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal testing is a controversial issue. Scientific societies such as The Royal Society support animal testing, arguing that is has been vital in almost every medical achivement in the 20th century and that it remains necessary for some areas of research. Some animal welfare groups, such as the US humane society, aim for the eventual removal of animal testing and work with scientists and governments to try to ensure that research is as humane as possible. Other groups, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, call for an immediate end to such research, arguing variously that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation."

No, Tim. Please leave it as supporters and opponents. What you are trying to set up here is that the pro-view is scientific, the anti-view extreme, and reasonable welfare groups are in the middle. But the divide just doesn't work that way. Please leave it as supporters and opponents, and develop more detail in a new section if you want to. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is that since the largest animal welfare group in the world has a clear position on animal testing, this should be at least mentioned in the lead. The focus on the views of the smaller and more extreme groups is indeed an issue I am concerned about. If you don't wish to add the mainstream animal welfare groups' positions to the lead, how do you suggest we can make the lead adhere to WP:UNDUE in this regard? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that the position of the HSUS differs significantly from that of the BUAV, say? To the very best of my knowledge, they are both equally opposed. I may have misunderstood, of course, but I see nothing supportive of it (even slightly) in the HSUS literature. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"As do most scientists, The HSUS advocates an end to the use of animals in research and testing that is harmful to the animals. Accordingly, we strive to decrease and eventually eliminate harm to animals used for these purposes." HSUS Statement on Animals in Biomedical Research, Testing, and Education

Versus

"It is simply morally indefensible that in the 21st century some of the most advanced laboratories in the world are still pouring tens of millions of public money into the type of research that belongs in the dark ages. For example, there was a 107 per cent increase in cosmetic research on animals. We now as a society must insist that our politicians listen to the overwhelming voice of European citizens and act now to end the suffering." 2007 BUAV Statement

You don't see a difference there? As the draft currently states - "Some animal welfare groups, such as the US humane society, aim for the eventual removal of animal testing and work with scientists and governments to try to ensure that research is as humane as possible. Other groups, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, call for an immediate end to such research" Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That there is a big difference seems to be your own OR, Tim. HSUS make clear, for example, that in their view experiments on primates should stop immediately. BUAV has elsewhere made clear that, in certain very limited circumstances, some types of studies could be justified. Opposition positions are often more nuanced than you might think. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Tim is mistaken that HSUS is an animal welfare group. They are not. They are an animal rights group, equivalent in mission to BUAV and perhaps even more anti-testing than PETA. They just market themselves differently. If you look at their action campaigns and how they spend their money it is clear. I think it is worth mentioning that the British Parliament and US Congress have each written official summary statements on testing and support its use, and that this contribution (which I added and Slimvirgin opposed and deleted) would help with WP:UNDUE. Whereas there is too much material in this to add it to the lead en todo, sections of it could be added to clearly indicate this is the view of the representatives of the majority, which would address WP:UNDUE. That section read like this...--Animalresearcher (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Official statements from representative bodies

The US Congress, in 1985, held a series of hearings on animal research. In it, they heard testimony from veterinarians, doctors, scientists, and animal rights activists including Alex Pacheco. They wrote a summary of their findings on animal research into the law commonly called the Animal Welfare Act. They wrote

(1) 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;

(2) methods of testing that do not use animals are being and continue to be developed which are faster, less expensive, and more accurate than traditional animal experiments for some purposes and further opportunities exist for the development of these methods of testing;

(3) measures which eliminate or minimize the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals can result in more productive use of Federal funds; and

(4) measures which help meet the public concern for laboratory animal care and treatment are important in assuring that research will continue to progress.

The principles outlined in these findings guide the law in the USA, as well as guiding the oversight of animal welfare in laboratory research.

One moral basis for animal testing was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002: "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." Some researchers also believe animals may suffer less during throughout the testing process than human beings would because they have a reduced capacity to remember and anticipate pain. The House of Lords report further made the following statement about research experiments using animals "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge."

Intro

The "controversy" section only constitutes about 25% of the article, but references to the controversy currently occupy 50% of the intro. Also, the intro doesn't really summarize the "Reasearch classification" section even though it is a major portion of the article. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right, the lead does a poor job of summarising the article as a whole. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that an article of this length could probably support a four paragraph intro. The first paragraph could include the standard lead-in and the definition of animal testing, the second history and animals used, the third research classification, and the fourth controversy. Cla68 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Animals used could also go in the first paragraph, I think, leaving the second paragraph completely to history. Cla68 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And what brings you to this article, Cla68? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you forgotten the 3RR accusation that drew everyone's attention to this article?[7] I've been watching since then, and have been hoping for over a month that the massive External link farm would be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT soon; it's one of the worst I've seen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It just has been pruned. I aim to start looking at the remainder to make sure they're relevant and still working. But again, Sandy, what brings you here? Why the sudden interest? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I just said (above), I've been following this article since it was brought to my attention on December 17 via a surprising 3RR warning to Tim (whose talk page I have had watched for a very long time). Since I just saw a partial prune (finally) of a massive external link farm,[8] it seemed a good time to ask that the job be finished. I found several Dmoz categories that could be used in place of the external link farm, but I'm not sure which is best to use, as there are several; you might want to do a DMOZ search, and use the DMOZ cat in place of all the external links, which is a technique used on many medical articles to avoid the WP:NOT a support group issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, see the External links at Asperger syndrome. The article is comprehensive, and since DMOZ contains all the support group links that were always being added, we were able to prune them all by linking to DMOZ instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did ask on AN/I a while ago that more people put this article on their watchlists, since this is an area where a diverse set of opinions is very valuable in correcting each editors' inherent POV. I'm pleased to see so many people are interested. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But what has happened instead is that two people who oppose me over other issues have turned up, one of whom regularly wikistalks me, neither of whom has edited this article before, and neither of whom has any specialist knowledge. I don't really see that as helpful, Tim. In fact, it looks like an attempt simply to get some numbers on your side, which was the kind of attitude I was hoping we could move away from. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question has been answered, please stop the conspiracy theories. No one owns this article, and many people have watched this article since the 3RR accusation. I edit across a *very* broad range of medical articles (this is a medical article); I don't know a thing about Tuberculosis, but that didn't stop me from working with Tim to keep it featured, because I do know how to edit medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't start up here, Sandy. This is not a medical article. This is about animal research, and requires very specific knowledge. It certainly isn't helped by enemies arriving with insults about conspiracy theories. Or do you feel that this exchange is helping the article?

Tim, I think we need mediation if this is the kind of atmosphere you want to edit in. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit of an overreaction to my suggestion that DMOZ can be used to help prune the external link farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Also, would you consider please rephrasing your use of the word "enemies" above? I don't consider myself an enemy of anyone; are you saying you consider me an enemy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a reaction to you turning up here, an article you've never edited before, after our situation over Zeraeph. It's a reaction to you turning up with Cla68, who has been regularly wikistalking me for what must be about a year, and who has never edited here before either. Yet here you both are within seven minutes of each another. Please forgive me my conspiracy theory. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes. I've had to cover my eyes for six weeks, every time I've looked at the worst external link farm I've ever seen, you just started to prune it, so I offered a suggestion. I'll be happy to be quiet now if my presence bothers you so, but please strike the "enemy" comment, unless you consider me an enemy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, more input from the community is always helpful in solving problems. For example, Crum375 has just appeared, who is always a useful editor to have around. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More input from people who know about the subject is helpful. How does it help us to have input from people who don't? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to content and avoid personalizing issues; my suggestions to use DMOZ to help trim the external link farm is above. It's been troubling me for six weeks, since I first saw this article on Dec. 17. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What's DMOZ? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An internet directory (the internet directory). Look at the external links in Asperger syndrome, autism, Tuberculosis, Tourette syndrome probably any medical article I've worked on. It solves a whole lot of WP:NOT WP:EL external link farm issues. Often, there is more than one DMOZ cat that can be used. I was going to do that back in December, but there are several potential cats, so it's best someone else figure out which to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add several categories? Crum375, what do you think of this idea? It could help make that section more manageable. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can add as many DMOZ categories as you need. For example, on many medical articles, I add the main DMOZ category, as well as the Support group category. That helps get around the WP:NOT a support group problem that always occurs on medical articles, where everyone wants to add their group. Look at Tourette syndrome; I think I have both there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't think I've ever edited the same content article that you were editing before, so I don't understand your accusation either. I think the use of such a label is unfortunate and counterproductive. If you think I'm "wikistalking" you (whatever that really means), I invite you to bring it up on the appropriate forum and we can exhaustively discuss each other's behavior and ethics. My attention was also drawn to this article because of the 3RR warning you gave Tim on his talk page and I've been watching it for some time. In the past I've also gotten involved in other controversial subjects, including Global Warming, Sea of Japan, and Gary Weiss. Anyway, back to my original thought...the intro as written doesn't presently match the article that follows below it. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean Sea of Korea? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was always careful to call it the East Sea when I lived in Korea! Cla68 (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Back to the subject. I was going to suggest a second paragraph for the intro that summarized the "History" section of the article, but I found that that that section doesn't really cover the history of animal testing. Instead, it appears to present a history of criticism of animal testing. I believe that criticism of animal testing should go in the "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. Can we please rewrite that section so that it actually gives a history of the use of animals in experiments? Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest the following paragraph for the intro to summarize the "classification" section of the article:

Animal testing classifications include pure and applied research, Xenotransplantation, and toxicology, cosmetics, and drug testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research.

Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems a very good suggestion, thank you, I've been bold and added this to the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this paragraph has been reverted by Crum which wasn't probably the best course of action since no one had actually objected to it here. I'll readd it and ask that Crum, who is always useful to have around, respond here to discuss it before removing it. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin objected to it below, saying: Also, to put a paragraph in the lead about pure v applied research when we were debating the point of those sections is odd. However, I don't know what sections she was referring to. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ proposal

How about replacing all the external links with:

• Animal Experiments - Vivisection
• Animal Experiments - Vivisection: Organizations
• Animal Experiments - Vivisection: Government

Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally like to have a few well chosen external links (if needed at all) vs. big link farms of any kind. Crum375 (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using DMOZ that I've seen on other articles is that these lists can be highly POV, and we don't control the content. They're usually not used for that reason on contentious pages. The EL guideline used to say that, but perhaps it's been changed. In any event, it's not a good idea for a subject like this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

Can I ask again that we stop using primary sources so much? What's happening is that people are saying "primates are used to study visual disorder," and are linking to one paper in which they were so used. But if we were to link to every paper about studies that had used a non-human primate, we would need to open our own wiki. Therefore, it's better to use secondary sources who give an overview, discussing how they're used, how many, mostly in what areas etc. Otherwise, we're effectively engaged in OR, randomly picking research papers to satisfy the sourcing requirements, without really looking to see if what they say is directly relevant. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On that note, the pure research section may require resourcing, since there are a number of primary references used there. I'm a little busy at the the moment, but I'd be happy to tackle that over the next week or so. Rockpocket 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think both those sections (pure and applied) need to be rewritten, but there's no rush, obviously. I'm not sure I'm in a position to do it properly, so I hesitate to try. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I could write pages on those subjects, but the area is so incredibly diverse, its near impossible to do anything other than explain what the type of research is and then give a few example in the space we have here. It would be a bit like describing physics or chemistry in paragraph. Rockpocket 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there specific differences in the kinds of animals used, or the way they're used? If there aren't, I wonder if it's even worth highlighting the distinction. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I mean one could generalize — non-rodent mammals are perhaps more likely to be used in applied research than pure research, for example. I'm just not sure of a better way to give a flavor of what animal testing actually is, from a practical perspective, than select one or two disciplines with examples. If some one can come up with any ideas, then I'm very willing to do what I can to help. Rockpocket 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That section is still stuffed with non-review references. I made a start replacing some of them a while ago, but there are a lot left to deal with. The Royal Society and National Academies reports might be particularly good sources for this section, although a bit focused on the historical aspects. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident I can replace most of the primary sources with appropriate review articles. I'll try and complete it by the weekend. The, I guess, we can see where the text can be improved. Rockpocket 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the call to limit the use of primary sources? Wikipedia's policy doesn't limit the amount of primary sources that can be used, only that they be used with care. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. And "used with care" also means limit, and preferably use them alongside a secondary source. In controversial articles, it's even more important to rely as much as possible on secondary sources, since they provide perspective and interpretation. Crum375 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When I originally referenced these, I provided primary sources as a specific example of the studies about which I was writing. This isn't particularly helpful for readers wishing to learn about the use of animal models in evolution, for example, in general. I think secondary sources such as academic reviews are better for this sort of article, unless we are talking about a specific experiment. Rockpocket 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Individual papers and reports of experiments are too sensitive to our choice of those experiments out of a wide field of alternatives. Relata refero (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Where a primary source would be particularly apt is stating such things as "the regulations say" or "the protocol requires", here linking to the document itself can be preferable to linking to somebody else's interpretation of the document. However, this does need to be done with care, and I agree with Rockpocket that peer-reviewed academic reviews are certainly the best source for describing the science involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation on this article has been opened here. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic problem

As I see it, the problem with this article is that, if someone who knew nothing about animal testing were to read it, they wouldn't know much more once they'd finished, because most of it is waffle. What can we do about that? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We need to focus on the subject, not the controversy. Easy to say, hard to do. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The two can't and should not be separated. I was reading a very good book last night about this, written by a specialist (pro-testing), who writes about researchers' attempts to "scientize" the subject, as though living beings were not involved. He writes about how they carefully choose certain language, all the issues we have seen on this page. I would have added some of it tonight, but as usual I was too busy arguing petty non-issues with you. I don't know where you find the time or energy to engage like this, Tim, I really don't. We are supposed to be writing articles. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to focus on what secondary sources say about Animal Testing. This is not an Animal Testing How-to — it's what reliable secondary sources have published about the topic. Crum375 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Those two points of view are the core of the problem. I see this article as primarily about "animal testing" - history, methods, aims, and results - with the controversy as one sub-section no more important then any other. In contrast, It seems to me that for you the controversy is the subject, and everything else is seen in the light of that issue. I would recommend this question as the core subject for an RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflit with Tim as always) Crum, that's exactly right, but for some reason it's impossible to get this across. We don't fill the article on the Arab-Israeli situation with press releases from both sides. We fill it with newspaper articles, books, and scholarly papers about the conflict, written by people on all sides who offer an overview. That doesn't mean that primary sources can't sometimes be used too, but we shouldn't have whole sections, or key issues, relying on them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, once again you miss the point. You don't produce secondary sources about animal testing either, never mind about the controversy. You rely on your own interpretation of primary sources, but you are not an expert on animal testing. We want to hear expert views about the primary sources, not yours, with respect. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As a general point, Wikipedia articles are not there to give you everything under the sun having to do with the given topic, but what the secondary sources have published about it, from the top level view. Crum375 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an analogy. Imagine we were writing an article about knitting. Tim is giving us the equivalent of:

Blue pullovers are knitted in the UK.<ref>"Knitting pattern for a blue pullover" by Mrs. Smith of the UK.</ref> Pink cardigans are also knitted there.<ref>"Knitting pattern for a pink cardigan" by Mrs. Jones of the UK.</ref>

That's OR, uninformative, and not what's wanted. Wikipedia articles should be like this:

Professor Needle of Knotingham University's Department of Popular Pastimes reports that ten thousand blue pullovers were knitted in the UK last year, overtaking the previously more popular pink cardigan.<ref>''Knitting in the British Isles from 2001 to 2008'' by Professor Needle.</ref>

Tim, do you see the difference? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I do, which is why I try to use peer-reviewed academic reviews as sources. Such as diff 1, diff 2 diff 3, diff 4. Hopefully much more of the article will be sourced to such highly reliable sources in the future. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just check that we have indeed come to agreement here on your concern about sources? As this was one of the main issues you raised in your request for mediation, I want to make sure it has been resolved to your satisfaction. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The pain section needs help

The pain section needs help. I suggest:

Pain is a complex subject that has numerous aspects and has distinct and seperate componets that are evaluated and weighed in the planning of animal experimentation and during the operational phase. For example the 1990 Assessment and Control of the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Laboratory Animals, was written to "aid communication between all those concerned with the use and welfare of laboratory animals" and it presents a detailed severity index metric for the operational assessing and controlling of pain and distress in laboratory animal procedures based on numerically assigned evaluations of the following considerations:

1. consciousness,
2. anesthesia,
3. preparation,
4. restraint,
5. duration,
6. tissue sensitivity,
7. organ risk,
8. mortality,
9. pain,
10. distress,
11. deprivation, and
12. frequency.

Operational control of severity considerations include:

1. management practices,
2. psychosocial influences,
3. disease,
4. objective measurement and record keeping,
5. training,
6. procedure design practices,
7. basic husbandry considerations, and
8. planning for emergency and humane end-points for each procedure.

I suppose the data is densely packed, but nowhere else in the article do we present any actual details about what the "on the ground" criteria are concerning pain management in animal testing. I think it is important not to just wave our hands and talk in complete generalities. The source is there for anyone who wishes to expand on or better understand the listed considerations. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of expanding that section, as I said above. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I was pleased to read that. I'm hoping for some specifics, and the above was the best I was able to come up with. You appear to be indicating you intend to come up with something better. What exactly is done to limit pain? is the question I want answered. I hope you find further material we can use. By the way, the above source is part of a very large assemblage of sources gathered specifically to teach about this and related subjects. http://oslovet.veths.no/fag.aspx?fag=60 seems authoritative and NPOV with regard to both ethics and science. But you probably already know of other equally good sources. I'm eager to see what you come up with, but if there is too much delay, I'll just put in the above until someone comes up with something better. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not much is done to limit pain, and the source explains why. He is a pro-testing source, so it's interesting to read. He doesn't defend the practice, but also doesn't attack it with invective, so you feel as though you're being educated rather than fed propaganda. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not much is done to limit pain" is the exact opposite what what reliable published sources say. Perhaps you mean to say that "Not enough is done to limit pain". Using flies instead of people to advance scientific knowledge is doing something to limit pain. Do you not understand that the information you removed above explains in detail how pain is in fact limited and the specific considerations used in making sure that pain is the minimum necessary to achieve the specific goals of the experiment being evaluated and/or operated? Or did you delete it because you disagree that it is accurate. You said you deleted it because "it does not say anything". I thought you just did not understand it. Are you saying it does not say anything you want to hear? I'm confused. Do you have evidence this is not a reliable source? Or is the evidence that it says something you disagree with? Help me out here. What's going on? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it doesn't say anything. Words without meaning. Nothing anyone could or would ever read. Tell me in your own words what this sentence means: "It presents a detailed severity index metric for the operational assessing and controlling of pain and distress in laboratory animal procedures based on numerically assigned evaluations of organ risk." No handwaving please. Imagine you were writing it for the simple English Wikipedia, and that your life depended on your readers understanding the sentence. What would the translation be?

It's interesting that you're criticizing what I'm about to write before I've even written it. That's a new one even for this page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in mainstream press sources, this might be useful. Rockpocket 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. I was about to add a section on euthanasis, but I only had one good source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

""It presents a detailed severity index metric for the operational assessing and controlling of pain and distress in laboratory animal procedures based on numerically assigned evaluations of organ risk." - is equal to - "It presents a detailed and practical way for assessing and controlling pain. This is based on seeing which organ is involved, and then referring to a scale that grades how painful manipulations of this organ usually are." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim, but I asked WAS, because I wanted to know whether he understood what he proposed to add to the article. But you see how stupefying that kind of writing is. And even though your translation appears on the surface to be much clearer, what does it actually say? What is the detailed and practical way of assessing and controlling pain? How can painful manipulations of an organ translate to a scale? These handwaving summaries miss the point that none of these issues are understood by anyone, not by researchers, not by medical doctors, and not by philosophers. Whenever we add anything like this, we have to show the reader that we're familiar with the background, and not just cut and paste material that we don't understand ourselves. Otherwise the reader will be just as puzzled at the end of the sentence as she was at the start of it.

Here is another example of dense writing: "Scientists studying mechanisms of evolution use a number of animal species, including mosquitos, sticklebacks, and lampreys, because of their niche physiology, morphology, ecology, or phylogeny."

Again, for the simple English Wikipedia, what does it mean? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I wrote that. It means scientists choose specific species to study evolution, with examples, because they have unusual body functions, body shapes, interactions with their environment or positions on the evolutionary tree of life. If you wish to replace the technical name for those things with a more simplified explanation, instead of simply linking them as I did, then feel free. Rockpocket 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't refuse sources because you don't like the style of English that they use. A reliable source is a reliable source. Selectively refusing sources might give the appearance of POV-pushing, which is something that should be avoided. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla, if you have something productive to add to the discussion, please do so. To explain to a veteran editor, who has significantly contributed to many of Wikipedia's existing content policies, what a source is, or how to use it, can be viewed by some as trolling. Crum375 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is on using that source for the pain section. WAS and Tim appear to believe that it is reliable and can be used. Slim apparently doesn't like the way it's written, but isn't addressing whether it is a reliable source. That's the discussion here, not whether anyone of us is "trolling". Please keep comments here related to the content of the article and the sources used and how they are used. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that we have editors trying to find the proper way to present properly sourced and balanced information about a controversial issue. If you'd like to make suggestions, e.g. help clarify the language, or find betters sources, please do so. Anything else is counter-productive. Crum375 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that commenting on the inclusion of a source under consideration is counter-productive at all. How else will we reach a decision on whether to include it or not? I'm sure you support open and honest discussion on all aspects of this article's content and I appreciate it. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, back to the article discussion...I join WAS and Tim in supporting that source under discussion as a reliable source that can be used for the Pain section in the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is "reliable" or not. We are trying to stay away from primary sources, or sources that are too obscure for the average readers. No one is saying that that source is unreliable. Crum375 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see SlimVirgin you simply reverted all changes in your last edit, including the addition of a review that specifically dealt with the subject - "Assessing animal cognition: ethological and philosophical perspectives." It seems that simple reversions are indeed a bit too common on this article, I will replace the material you removed and hope you will not repeat your reversion. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for readding the material, Tim. I'm sure Slim reverted it by mistake. Anyway, back to the discussion on primary sources...I looked at the relevant policy [9] and it doesn't say that there is a limit to the amount of primary sources that can be used in an article, only that they should be used with care. We're satisfying that requirement by extensive discussion on this talk page. WAS, Tim, and myself have reviewed that source and believe it is appropriate for the section in question in a way described above. I believe all objections have now been addressed? Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PSTS is written to ensure that primary sources are minimised; otherwise, as SV says, we have no way of knowing whether a particular primary source is representative or not, and in fact are conducting our own original research.

On the other hand, if we're talking about the 1990 Assessment, that's a secondary source. Relata refero (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

PMIDs and dois as links

I noticed you having problems with that social behaviour article Rockpocket. PubMed IDs formatted as PMID 1234 are automatically made into a link, for articles that aren't in PubMed you can use their digital object identifier (in this case DOI=10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00363.x) and put this into [10] to get a permanent link. Hope this helps Tim Vickers (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Tim. I knew there was some way of using the DOI, I just didn't know exactly how! Rockpocket 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There seemed to be some kind of hidden character in the title that messed with the format, once I deleted all the spaces and then replaced them it worked fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Usually I use this tool to generate pre-formatted citations, but citation templates don't seem to be the house style in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thats nice - I have bookmarked it, thanks. Thanks also for fixing that for me. Rockpocket 02:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I might be being a bit dim, but where is the section covering the arguments for and against animal testing other than the lead? I'd also like to point out that the section on "Pain and suffering" is a mess - the pointers to dualism and Descartes are bizarre at the very least, and a large part of it is dedicated to the views of one Larry Carbone for no obvious reason. --Coroebus 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, appears to be here, any reason? I was wanting to insert something from PMID 14988196 --Coroebus 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and be bold, this review also studies the same question. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to strip out a lot of that Carbone stuff, it is far too detailed, focuses entirely on this one guy's opinions, and large parts are quite irrelevant quotes and opinions. --Coroebus 13:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It does read a bit like a book review at present. I tried to remove the historical discussion, which might help with the excessive detail, but I was reverted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to remove the anecdotes and speculation as to why scientists might be failing to use analgesia (presented without any evidence that they do in fact fail to do so) but was reverted by Crum because "Please do not remove reliably sourced material". Apparently some stretch of text having a source is all that is necessary for it to be included in the article. That may explain why so many of our articles read so badly. Clearly what we really need in this article is a series of quotes from various individuals on 'both sides' to bring it down to the level of some many other great wikipedia articles. --Coroebus 16:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a secondary source of equal or better quality to Carbone (who is pro Animal testing), which espouses a different view, it should be considered if it adds new information. The advantage of relying on Carbone is that by being a secondary source on the pro testing camp, yet trying hard to see the con side, he is helping us create a neutral presentation, which is our goal. Crum375 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider Carbone in the pro-testing camp. I have firsthand knowledge of his work as an IACUC vet, and as a university clinical vet. I could get very detailed into my reasons why but will refrain for obvious reasons. The point I am trying to make is that if you showed most researchers the conduct of Larry Carbone on the job, and that of other primate specialist vets, I don't think many researchers would choose Larry. He is very knowledgable and resourceful and smart, but his demeanor seeks more to punish researchers than to help mutually advance animal welfare and scientific goals. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It may surprise you to know that we are not obliged to include any and everything we can find a source for. I object particularly to the section beginning "Researchers may remain reluctant to dispense pain medication for a number of reasons...", as it is question begging. George Bush may be covering up that the CIA carried out 9/11 because it was part of a global Jewish conspiracy to attack Iraq, but relevant articles do not need speculation of that nature because we have no reason to believe that they did do it! Similarly we can't have a section speculating as to why researchers don't give analgesia if we don't have any evidence that they don't. --Coroebus 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation is a bit more complex than a yes/no question. Researchers do give analgesics, but as pain is very difficult to diagnose in animals, they may not always give enough. See:

• Karas AZ (2006). "Barriers to assessment and treatment of pain in laboratory animals". Lab Anim (NY). 35 (7): 38–45. PMID 16807565.
• Stasiak KL, Maul D, French E, Hellyer PW, VandeWoude S (2003). "Species-specific assessment of pain in laboratory animals". Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 42 (4): 13–20. PMID 12906396.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

So this Carbone quote, while entirely speculative, does address a possible problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But that (the difficulty in diagnosing pain in animals) is an entirely different question to Carbone's claim/speculation that they are not used because of expense, red-tape, human resources, side effects, and the bizarre idea that by avoiding giving analgesia they don't feel like people that inflict pain. --Coroebus 17:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but this is may be a genuine problem, so it would probably be best to incorporate the new references and condense the speculative sections of the text, rather than simply removing it entirely. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This "problem" is clearly identified in the "Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals" when it makes it clear that professional opinions on species specific indicators of pain are required. In practice, that means that either the researchers must defer to veterinarians with species-specific expertise on issues where pain is possible, or that they themselves must become experts in recognizing the species-specific indicators. The latter is very very difficult to justify to the USDA, so our IACUC, and that of many other institutions, refer all possible pain issues to veterinarians. If you follow my logic, it means that under current regulations, researchers are not doing a whole lot of decision-making on analgesia. The vets call the shots. And this is certainly how Larry Carbone operated. The "Guide" is the defining text for the IACUC function, so this is legally binding in the USA. In practice, it can become a problem of what constitutes adequate signs of pain for the researcher to bring in the vet for a professional opinion. But with good faith efforts on both sides it tends to resolve itself pretty quickly. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

These are not an improvement. The "ethics and usefulness" section isn't well written and basically consists of a list, whereas we had just managed to get rid of the list-like quality of some sections. We need material that people will read.

Coroebus, the idea that people underestimating pain deliberately doesn't belong in the pain section is obviously strange. We can't have POV-forks sections where everything bad is lumped together.

Also, to put a paragraph in the lead about pure v applied research when we were debating the point of those sections is odd.

Finally, the "allegations of abuse" section header is POV because it is only researchers who would regard this as abuse, as opposed to use. Those opposed to testing see these incidents as inevitable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the wholesale reversion of three different editors changes to an article seems to be another example of "overreliance on reverting as an editing tool, rather than collaboration". This is particularly true of sections where your major criticism is not the content, but only the way they are written. Could I suggest that if you think something could be better phrased or formatted, that it would be a better idea to just rewrite it or format it, rather than delete it. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the first part of the ethics section to remove the "list" format. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The rest of it is still just a list, Tim. I thought we were trying to make this article more readable. How can the "usefulness" section be rewritten when it's unreadable, and what does "usefulness" even mean? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Do you not understand the concept of "usefulness" in general, or just in this specific instance? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's poor English, it's not clear what it means in this context, and it's highly POV. E.g. "The most vocal proponents of animal testing have vested interests in maintaining the practice." How is that an example of usefulness? E.g. "Drugs and vaccines produced through animal testing are vital to modern medicine." Yes, but the argument is they could have been produced without animal testing, so it begs the question.

This is just poor writing and editing. We agreed a few weeks ago to get rid of a section like this that was a throwback to several years ago, because it was so poor. So why has it been resurrected? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to follow changes to this page. There has been an orderly and discussed evolution among several editors. I wish I knew more about the topic to contribute more. But the last day or two, the entire article was revamped. I agree with Slim that this is too many changes all at once - or over a one day period. When I read the current article, it seems more POV and less clear than when it was being worked on at a more reasonable pace, but it's confusing trying to see who or why the changes were made. Maybe the active editors could agree to work on one section at a time, or at least discuss and agree on changes prior to the entire article changing. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article used to be reasonably stable, with evolutionary changes, whereas now it seems to have more revolutionary changes, in one direction. This is clearly a controversial topic, with one side arguing AT is an atrocity, while the other defends it as a justified and necessary evil. Let's make changes carefully and be sure they all reflect both sides of the debate. Crum375 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a point: if there's a choice between having a list and reducing a subjective 'readability', and replacing a list and reducing encyclopaedic usefulness, I would hope we would go with the list. Relata refero (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

reference links

I checked each of the reference/further reading links - many no longer worked, two led to search engine results. NOTE: I did not note if removing these links affected the balance of views in the references. Below are removed links w/reasons:

1. Yahoo! - Animal Experimentation directory category.
2. Open Directory Project - Animal Experiments directory category
3. Animal Welfare Gateway, a collection of international links related to laboratory animals - redirects
4. "Tod im Labor" a film made by Animal Aid and Ärzte gegen Tierversuche (Doctors against Animal Experiments) 404
5. "Planet of Covance", a German film opposing animal testing – no longer at this URL
6. Unhappy Anniversary: Twenty years of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986", Animal Aid, retrieved July 15, 2006. – page no longer there
7. "An introduction to primate issues", Humane Society of the United States. – page no longer there
8. "The benefits of animal research", Seriously Ill for Medical Research], retrieved October 23, 2005. – page not there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob98133 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that "Animal rights" template in that section is still poorly-formatted though. It would be much better in a banner, rather than column format. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference removals

Hi there, I noticed "Covino, Joseph, Jr. Lab Animal Abuse: Vivisection Exposed!, Epic Press, 1990" was published by the vanity publisher Epic Press and is therefore not a reliable source. I removed this reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also removed "Diaries of despair", xenodiaries.org, Uncaged Campaigns, retrieved June 18, 2006. since this was a redundant reference and did not appear to be a mainstream media website. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Lantern Books are respected mainstream publishers. I asked about this at the WP:RS noticeboard and they recommended that an unbiased mainstream media source would be preferable. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The section in "Ethics" on The focus of public debate on this issue is also questioned, with over 10 times more animals are used by humans for other purposes... needs a source that makes this claim, at present this is original research. Most of the links were also broken or not relevant. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that sentence is a bit spurious, since I checked around a bit and didn't find any reference to this as a focus. In any event, the following couple of referenced statements really aren't germaine to the topic - the number of animals killed in shelters, by cars, for food, etc.,don't relate to the ethics of animal testing. I think those could be removed, and this sentence left something like: The focus of public debate on this issue has been questioned, since more animals are used by humans for other purposes.Bob98133 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, however, unless we can find a notable organisation actually making such an argument in support of animal testing, this sentence should really be removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal liberation front reference

I also removed a link to the Animal Liberation Front website. Since this organisation has been described by two governments as a terrorist organization, I don't think we should link to their site as a source for the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove animal rights sources just because you don't like them, Tim. The ALF is used as a source for something the ALF did, and so clearly it's appropriate. And Ingrid Newkirk is an RS when it comes to these issues. You can't purge the article of the AR perspective. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, as concerns about sourcing were one of the major points raised in the request for mediation, I am trying to improve the article by removing unreliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The mediation hasn't started yet, and the concerns raised were about your reliance on primary sources that you seemed unfamiliar with. It's hard to assume good faith when you're trying remove Ingrid Newkirk as a source. That POV can't just be erased from this article. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Newkirk's book is still in the article, but an additional mainstream source would be preferable. I notice you have replaced xenodiaries.org I did not think this website was a "respected mainstream publication", but I may be wrong - who are the authors of this material and what is their editorial process? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need an additional source to give information about something Newkirk has direct knowledge of. Uncaged campaigns is a well-known anti-testing group in the UK that's frequently used as a source by the mainstream media, and in this case was the Observer's source for the article used in the same section.

Tim, please read the policies. The idea of an "appropriate" source is important. We don't use Ingrid Newkirk to explain how to breed fruit flies, and we don't use a fruit fly expert to explain how the ALF removed an animal from a lab. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This inclusion of this reference is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lantern_books. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New sections

The problem with the Ethics and Validity sections is that they don't really say much. For example:

Proponents of animal research argue that drugs and vaccines produced through animal testing are vital to modern medicine, that there have been several examples of substances causing death or injury to human beings because of inadequate animal testing, and that there are no known alternatives to many kinds of animal testing. They claim that anti-vivisection activists manipulate and fabricate facts so that their claims are not reliable.

This level of generality isn't exactly educative. We should be writing the article so that people know more after reading it than they did before. We seem to be swinging between writing that's too dense and too specific to writing that's almost devoid of content. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the ethics section should mention Peter Singer at the very least. It needs better references and more specific discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Singer needs to be there, because he hasn't said anything that's specific to animal testing, that I know of anyway. It just needs to be more specific, based on good secondary sources who have written about the ethics. At the moment, it looks as though someone has written it without having read anything about the subject.

I'd say there shouldn't be an ethics section at all, because the issue of ethics runs all the way through this subject. For example, the Animal Care and Use Committees are designed to provide an ethical backdrop by asking certain questions about projects before they ever get started (is the use of this species really necessary, and so on).

What this article does badly is paint a picture of how animal testing actually works. I think anyone reading this who didn't know to begin with wouldn't know after having read it. I have some material I'd like to add from Carbone where he describes who works in labs, what their roles are, who they have to approach for permission to do certain things.

I think one of the things we should decide is who our readership is. When I write, I try to pitch things at an intelligent 18-year-old who has (or has access to) a large and sophisticated, but not a technical, vocabulary, and who knows nothing about the subject. Does that sound about the right approach for our average readership? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition of audience sounds reasonable, although key technical terms should still be used if linked and/or defined - if knowing these terms will be important for the reader in any further research on the topic. However, describing who works in labs is a bit redundant, animal testing is just a lab technique, so details on who scientists are and what their role are needs to go in a higher-level article. After all, we don't describe who uses SDS-PAGE or affinity chromatography in those articles. The best ethics resources I have come across recently are:

• Matfield M (1996). "The ethics of animal research. A special lecture to the Japanese Association of Laboratory Animal Science 6th June 1995". Exp. Anim. 45 (3): 209–15. PMID 8840136.
• Gannon F (2007). "Animal rights, human wrongs? Introduction to the Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research". EMBO Rep. 8 (6): 519–20. PMID 17545989. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BTW, just to clarify, when I talk about 18-year-olds, I mean young undergraduates, rather than high-school students. We definitely do not want high-school writing, which is my worry about the tone and content of the Ethics and Validity sections. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a section describing who does what and what permissions need to be applied for would be useful. Carbone provided it for the same reason. Not sure what you mean by a "higher level" article. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We used to have a section on animal research regulations, but as I recall it was moved to a sub-article. Anything specific should go there, but anything general on who carries out particular areas of research shouldn't go in an article on a particular experimental technique. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A good general review of this area is in "A companion to ethics.", (Blackwell) edited by Peter Singer. The chapter on "Animals" by Lori Gruen discusses the various positions. I'll read this again over the next few days. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Practical example?

I was thinking about the difficulty raised above that this article only talks in general terms about animal experiments. What would people think about putting one detailed example in, showing an application in a bit more experimental detail? I could write a 1 - 2 paragraph summary of PMID 17170305 if people were interested, possibly with a figure showing a virulence assay? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Any practical example would have to be from a secondary source offering it, not an editor's interpretation of a primary source. As I said earlier, I have an example ready from Carbone, though when I suggested it you said you didn't think it was a good idea. He describes who the personnel are and what regulations they have to follow. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on how well and verifiable your description represented animal testing in general. Walking through the general process in a specific case with attention to it being an illustration of the general case. Perhaps something like:

1. identify a question to investigate
2. identify a test procedure to investigate the question
3. identify relevant laws, scientific knowledge, financial and management concerns
4. apply and create an appropriate protocol for the test
5. execute the protocol (do the test)
6. evaluate the results WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It used a genetic cross carried out by feeding two strains (virulent and avirulent) of Toxoplasma to a cat, isolating cysts from its faeces, and then examined the virulence of the progeny in mice. This allowed the identification of a previously-unknown virulence factor. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking we might be best off with three examples showing invertebrate animal testing, a non-pet-type animal testing, and a pet type animal testing; and here you have one experiment with all three! WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately toxo isn't an animal, it's a protozoa - certainly a eukaryote, but not part of animalia. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun99/rhname.html for a good (and fun) read about this clasification. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"particularly not in German biologists" :) ROTFL - superb! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Death is not considered by policy makers to be an issue that harms laboratory animals."

Could I ask for a source for this rather strange statement? A good one would be a policy maker stating that "Death does not harm animals." - although I doubt if you will ever find somebody saying this. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I inserted the source after that sentence. It's well-known that death is not considered a harm to lab animals. I think it was one of the issues BUAV requested a judicial review of in the Cambridge case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see from reading the source I just added that you are quite right, but that this relates to the legal, rather than common-sense, definition of "harm". What do you think of the new formulation? I think readers would have been severely confused by reading that death doesn't harm something, so this might be a bit clearer. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a legal issue, but a practical and philsophical one. If animal researchers assign value to animal life, they would arguably have to stop their research, or would at least have to come up with some kind of value criteria, and say what they were based on. This leads into the problematic areas that Peter Singer covers e.g. why would you assign a greater value to, say, a human being in an irreversible coma than to, say, a young, healthy baboon? For these reasons, policy has never assigned a value to laboratory animals lives, only to their pain and suffering. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, you're engaging in OR again. Please don't change edits to suit your personal opinion. You can't add "immediate" unconsciousness when there is no such thing; you would have to be specific (and I'm about to add an example). You can't change "methods regarded as acceptable" to "methods used," because all kinds of methods are used, acceptable and unacceptable. The ones listed are the ones regarded as acceptable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote the source you provided "These methods must cause immediate loss of consciousness through physical trauma to the brain." - p 298 Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 1 - please do not accuse me of original research when you have simply not read the sources you choose to cite. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion between two points. First is that animal life has no value to research or researchers, which is obviously wrong and not directly related to the edit. The second is that euthanasia is not considered a regulated part of pain and suffering for animals - and this is a valid perception. I would hesitate to list the acceptable forms of euthanasia - because there are many caveats and it would be extremely easy for a layperson to misrepresent the process. Yes, physical methods alone are acceptable, but only for neonatal rodents younger than a certain age because studies have demonstrated that there is no more humane method available for this type of animal, After deep anesthesia, almost any life-ending method is acceptable, including a physical method. Overdoses of barbiturates are acceptable, but only if death is verified by a physical method (this is why many were alarmed at the PETA animal kills which used a barbiturate overdose with no physical method). The guidelines are here http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf. This document also contains a synopsis on euthanasia. I think it is more appropriate to state that animal welfare consideration of pain and suffering is adequate if euthanasia falls within accepted guidelines for animals no longer contributing to research goals. And yes, in a sense, if an animal is not working out for research goals, it will be sold, donated, or euthanized. Unless it is a chimp - euthanizing chimps is not acceptable in the USA just because they are no longer contributing to research goals. --Animalresearcher (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I hesitate to include a "right to life" argument. Whereas I do not debate that some people hold this view, the ethical "right to life" position is not in the Animal Procedures Committee citation, and interjecting it substantially alters the meaning of the reference. The reference is more appropriately cited as saying that others, including animal rights organizations, argue that MORE cost should be associated with animal death that policy makers include, and gives a variety of reasons why the cost should be increased. If animals have a "right to life", then euthanasia is unethical with infinite cost to animals. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The text didn't say that the counter-argument was that animals have a right to life, but that their lives have "intrinsic value" - which is the phrase in the source. The last version was a bit opaque to read, what do you think of new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The text before I edited it said "right to life", which, as far as I can see, was not an argument included in the Animal Procedures reference. The new version is fine. I think it is notable that euthanasia is not considered a substantial cost in research - to a first approximation, suffering matters, but euthanasia does not count in animal welfare considerations - as is referenced. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't make it read like animal testing as a society-approved process is any different in its moral evaluations on killing animals is than other society-approved processes. Insecticides, rat poison, beef and pork on the dinner table, putting animals to sleep rather than providing the kind of health care that would be used for humans in the same condition. In general, society uses animals. Even pets are trained for the benefit of their owners rather than as part of an enrichment designed to make the animal's life more fulfilling. Humans use humans to a great extent also; a lot of what passes as free choice was actually carefully manipulated to benefit others. And a lot of human training is for the benefit of others rather than to help people to know how to be happy; how can you have a hardworking population if you teach them how to be happy with less? In short, animal killing in animal testing is just like it is in the rest of society. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)