This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alternatives to animal testing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Haleyhelmick,
MaddsCS.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Moore4jp.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To author of paragraph on production of monoclonal antibodies in vitro: this is a very worthwhile development but is related to production issues and not to using cell cultures as an alternative to animal testing. Therefore please consider removing it to a page dealing with production of biopharmaceuticals.
The quote at the end of the article is almost certainly inaccurate. I've checked 12 western countries and all require substantial procedures to be performed on animals by medical students. Unless he is (falliciously) referring to 3rd world countries with low requirements of course....
Link number 3 is not woring for me. Link #4 leads to a for-profit company advertisment page with very little substance. Note: link #3 should lead to the same company. Bottom line: The claims that there are computer simulations for asthma and diabetes are unsubstantiated.
An IP editor (and not me!) put an NPOV tag on the page. The edit summary was: "These lclaims all seem to be to activists on one side of a debate with a very serious agenda...I find the claim that "most scientists agree..." in the intro very questionable, and the citations biased". Actually, I think that the comment about the lead sentence is a valid one, and I'm going to modify the sentence accordingly. It may perhaps also be reasonable to look at whether the examples or the sources are skewed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The following: "Cell culture is currently the most successful, and promising, alternative to animal use." needs some kind of source. Cell culture is widespread in basic and applied biological research and is used primarily because it works for a variety of research needs, not because it is an alternative to animal use. Just because a lab uses cell culture techniques does not mean that they do so as an alternative to animal use. I'll look around at the NIH website to see if they have a statement that could support current wording. Also, ref #12, at least the abstract, which is all that I can access is a very poor source for the paragraph that contains it. The paper seems to conclude that the test in question doesen't actually work. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Sidelight 12 Talk 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
As a fairly recent editor to this article, it occurs to that this article as it now exists does not deserve the lack of neutrality tag it currently has. I propose this be removed.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The list of animal welfare groups is unhelpful for this article. More important is the second list of organisations whose primary work is to replace (and refine and reduce) animals in research. London prophet ( talk) 11:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As of late April 2015 I'm working on an update of this article that will add information about U.S. government agency activities in this area. My revisions will need to go through internal review and that may take a while but I want to let other potential editors know they are coming. NICEATM ( talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The statement, "Several tissue culture methods which measure the rate of chemical absorption by the skin have been approved by the OECD," is not accurate. OECD has adopted two methods for measuring skin absorption. Test Guideline 427 is an animal method. Test Guideline 428 does not use live animals but uses skin tissue from a human or animal donor so is not, strictly speaking, a tissue culture method. Reference: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of-chemicals-section-4-health-effects_20745788. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSSprankle ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion of the use of BlueGene L to model the function of a mouse's brain does not seem relevant to the topic of alternatives to animal use. While it's an interesting project, the description doesn't relate the model to potential replacement of animal use for a particular application. Suggest deleting, "In 2007, U.S. researchers...lacked the structures seen in real mice brains." Cheers-- CSSprankle ( talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph under the section "Microfluidic Chip" discusses the challenge of finding appropriate materials for microfluidic chips. This does not seem to be relevant to a discussion of the devices' potential use for replacement of animal use, and may be better suited to appear on the "Microfluidics Chip" Wikipedia page. Cheers-- CSSprankle ( talk) 20:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v13n3/AWICBulletinV13N3.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alternatives to animal testing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Haleyhelmick,
MaddsCS.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Moore4jp.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To author of paragraph on production of monoclonal antibodies in vitro: this is a very worthwhile development but is related to production issues and not to using cell cultures as an alternative to animal testing. Therefore please consider removing it to a page dealing with production of biopharmaceuticals.
The quote at the end of the article is almost certainly inaccurate. I've checked 12 western countries and all require substantial procedures to be performed on animals by medical students. Unless he is (falliciously) referring to 3rd world countries with low requirements of course....
Link number 3 is not woring for me. Link #4 leads to a for-profit company advertisment page with very little substance. Note: link #3 should lead to the same company. Bottom line: The claims that there are computer simulations for asthma and diabetes are unsubstantiated.
An IP editor (and not me!) put an NPOV tag on the page. The edit summary was: "These lclaims all seem to be to activists on one side of a debate with a very serious agenda...I find the claim that "most scientists agree..." in the intro very questionable, and the citations biased". Actually, I think that the comment about the lead sentence is a valid one, and I'm going to modify the sentence accordingly. It may perhaps also be reasonable to look at whether the examples or the sources are skewed. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The following: "Cell culture is currently the most successful, and promising, alternative to animal use." needs some kind of source. Cell culture is widespread in basic and applied biological research and is used primarily because it works for a variety of research needs, not because it is an alternative to animal use. Just because a lab uses cell culture techniques does not mean that they do so as an alternative to animal use. I'll look around at the NIH website to see if they have a statement that could support current wording. Also, ref #12, at least the abstract, which is all that I can access is a very poor source for the paragraph that contains it. The paper seems to conclude that the test in question doesen't actually work. Desoto10 ( talk) 05:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Sidelight 12 Talk 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
As a fairly recent editor to this article, it occurs to that this article as it now exists does not deserve the lack of neutrality tag it currently has. I propose this be removed.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The list of animal welfare groups is unhelpful for this article. More important is the second list of organisations whose primary work is to replace (and refine and reduce) animals in research. London prophet ( talk) 11:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As of late April 2015 I'm working on an update of this article that will add information about U.S. government agency activities in this area. My revisions will need to go through internal review and that may take a while but I want to let other potential editors know they are coming. NICEATM ( talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The statement, "Several tissue culture methods which measure the rate of chemical absorption by the skin have been approved by the OECD," is not accurate. OECD has adopted two methods for measuring skin absorption. Test Guideline 427 is an animal method. Test Guideline 428 does not use live animals but uses skin tissue from a human or animal donor so is not, strictly speaking, a tissue culture method. Reference: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of-chemicals-section-4-health-effects_20745788. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSSprankle ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion of the use of BlueGene L to model the function of a mouse's brain does not seem relevant to the topic of alternatives to animal use. While it's an interesting project, the description doesn't relate the model to potential replacement of animal use for a particular application. Suggest deleting, "In 2007, U.S. researchers...lacked the structures seen in real mice brains." Cheers-- CSSprankle ( talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph under the section "Microfluidic Chip" discusses the challenge of finding appropriate materials for microfluidic chips. This does not seem to be relevant to a discussion of the devices' potential use for replacement of animal use, and may be better suited to appear on the "Microfluidics Chip" Wikipedia page. Cheers-- CSSprankle ( talk) 20:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v13n3/AWICBulletinV13N3.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)