![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Are there governments which don't condone or allow animal testing? The US and UK govt's are singled out in the lede. On the other hand, the anti-testing movement is probably the noisiest in these countries, so it seem appropriate to mention PETA and BUAV in the lede. In the EU animal testing is increasingly regulated from Brussels; there's a bit of discussion about that in the article, mostly in relation to cosmetics, but this is not mentioned at all. Xasodfuih ( talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about globalisation, however, this article really should pay more attention to the fact that tightening animal regulations in one country may result in companies outsourcing research to countries with less restrictive regulations. This is discussed a bit here. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Although animal testing is the common term it is not the most accurate. Animal research encompasses all manner of animal experiments, whereas animal testing generally means safety testing. For instance when breeding two animals in order to experiment on the young, you would say you have "tested" on the parents, but you would have been part of the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm planning to write a paragraph about the 2006-2008 events described in PMID 18371494, mostly about attacks on scientists involved in non-human primate research. I hope the source is acceptable. Xasodfuih ( talk) 12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I backed out a bunch of changes made by jrtayloriv. There were numerous reasons. The lead photo, for example, was a heavily debated, consensus change, many months ago, and should be subject to debate. The space chimp, while dated, is a picture of animal testing provided by the animal testers, and is not as subject to claims of bias as the photos taken by animal rights activists. The ALF is not mentioned in the lead NOT because of omission of their viewpoint, but because the lead cannot mention everything, and BUAV and PETA are already linked in the lead. The addition of photos to the pain and suffering section lengthens the page, which already exceeds good page length guidelines, and the tag on the monkey photo was inappropriate, wrong, and unreferenced. The changes, en todo, were heavily biased, without adding referenced material. And the Silver Spring monkeys photo, because of the suspicion that it was staged by Pacheco (which is referenced on the Silver Spring monkey page), is not suitable on this page, but is suitable on the Silver Spring monkey page. -- Animalresearcher ( talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just happened by and noted that the section of regulation is pretty sparse, especially given that I've had to sit through 3-hour classes on the subject 3 times now. There's a half-dozen agencies involved, loads of rules that can be linked to, more detailed descriptions of IACUC procedures, and a description of penalties for violations. As it stands, it makes no mention of the usual bi-annual IACUC inspections, the random surprise inspections from any of the half-dozen regulatory bodies, or the extremely high cost for even minor violations (I recall hearing of one minor issue garnering a $10,000 *per day* fine). It also gives the impression that IACUC 'rubber-stamps' most things, when in reality, any procedure differing from the most common and routine can take months of back-and-forth to get accepted. Oh, it also doesn't mention that at many institutions, all animal care is handled by assistants directly employed by IACUC. Unfortunately, I'm bogged down in editing articles closer to my research area, but the information should be all over the web - including 'IACUC' in a google search will often bring up entire PDF documents with 40+ pages of policy. Mokele ( talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the sources are no longer present [web page removed, etc.] Can someone fix them please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.76.210 ( talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The link for the "animals used for animal testing" diagram, link number 40, does not work, it is: 40^ a b c Fifth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union Commission of the European Communities, published November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.101.145 ( talk) 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please delete this section in the discussion page once the edit is completed.
Due to the page being locked, I am not authorised to fix this sentence:
"These attacks, as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme," this prompted the US government to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.[177] "
It is not a funtional sentence and could possibly be repaired by removing the word "this" as in: extreme," this prompted the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElTimbalino ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The citation given doesn't appear to me to state any documented views of anti vivisectionists about pure research. Possibly modify this statement, unless citations can be found supporting the assertion ?
"Those opposed to animal testing object that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it may produce unforeseen benefits, rendering the distinction between pure and applied research — research that has a specific practical aim — unclear.[99]" -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this fairly recent addition here, because it isn't neutral, and making it so would make the lead too long.
The practice of animal testing is regulated to various extents in different countries. In 1984 the WHO's Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) issued International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals, and developed countries have instituted regulatory frameworks that are more extensive. In the United States and in many other countries, review committees serve as gatekeepers for determining whether the use of animals proposed is warranted. They examine protocols to see if these can be improved by reducing or replacing animal use, and aim to minimize suffering. [1] The trend in developed nations to offshore trials in biomedical research has also affected preclinical testing on animals, although to a lesser extent than clinical trials on humans. [2]
The anti-testing position is that the regulations are a joke, and that animal labs are not properly inspected. As this is a major complaint about animal testing, we would need to elaborate in some detail. I therefore suggest we leave this for the body of the text. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to explain why I have reverted some edits that, in effect, include animal observation within the "broader" definition of vivisection. Unless an editor can find a reliable source that specifically includes that definition (as opposed to describing kinds of experimental studies in which animals are observed, but without using the word vivisection), it seems to me that defining the term in this way is unverifiable. But I think I understand what the editor might be getting at: there are some critics of animal experimentation who consider even noninvasive studies of animals to be ethically improper. However, I am not aware of a scholarly use of the word vivisection for that. Perhaps a referenced example could be found of a critic of research misusing the word vivisection in this way, which might be interesting to include, and to which I would have no objection. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to use wiki very well so I'm not sure how to explain this but scroll to the bottom of Animal Testing(and 'Blind Experiment' among others) and you will see this:
No idea what that include is or how to remove it just bringing it to someone's attention. It's the "Medical research studies" include that you use with these brackets { } —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.209.193.189 (
talk •
contribs) 07:49, 4 November 2009
I think the title needs to be re-thought, as well as the whole section. Firstly, the inclusion of Dolly seems out of place among the other cases. Secondly, the title is misleading - these are prominent *abuse* cases. "Prominent cases" would better describe prominent research that has used animals, such as the use of frogs to understand muscle physiology, squid to understand neurons, Drosophila for genetics, etc. And last, but by far not least, it strikes me as highly NPOV to have a two-page list of abuse cases without any similarly sizable section on benefits. Mokele ( talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The LEAD section should refer roughly proportionally to the material in the page. The Fbrnabr edits, while referenced, distorted the LEAD from its prior balance - a balance which had been carefully sought and fought over. Including that much PRO-testing advocacy in the lead will require space for rebuttal - and the page will degenerate into a fight over advocacy. Advocacy has its place - pro AND con - but this page is about the use of animals in testing, teaching, and research, and not principally about advocacy. -- Animalresearcher ( talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I find this terminology a bit strange:
Is "non-human animals" a standard terminology used in animal testing nowdays? (Í've seen it used elsewhere in a similar context.) To me it seems a bit POV, 'left-wing', 'politically correct'. Are we equating humans to animals here? Sorry for being 'specie-ist' but wouldn't plain 'animal' do? -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see that this answers my question. Surely 'animal' means 'non-human'? That seems clear to me. And I am a layperson not involved in animal testing. My question still, is 'non-human animals' a common term in this context? To me adding to animal is mere 'puffery'. -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 09:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"Non-human animal" is the standard term, both in the science and bureaucracy of this topic. There's also no controversy - humans are animals, and to claim otherwise is like claiming flowers aren't plants. Mokele ( talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you first ask - "Is it unclear?" - I think the answer is no. The title of the page is not non-human animal testing, nor has anyone ever posted anything under that topic anywhere. Dictionary definitions include both humans as animals (strictly speaking in terms of whether a species belongs to the animal kingdom), but also a common usage of animals to refer to species that are animals but not humans. The rationale for including the modifier non-human on animals is that you want to remind the reader that humans are animals, too. In other words, this is an issue of WP:NPOV, and not an issue of clarity.-- Animalresearcher ( talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I restored the original term "non-human animal" because I believe it is shorter, simpler and clearer than the other language, which assumes an undefined sequence (from X to Y). Crum375 ( talk) 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, how is it hard to understand this? Any "from____ to ____" is poor phrasing, unscientific, uninformative, and actively perpetuates an obsolete concept. Pretty words are not more important than accuracy. If you do not understand this concept, go back to editing Family Guy episode summaries. An encyclopedia which is not accurate is worthless, however 'readable' it is.
Mokele (
talk)
18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Are there governments which don't condone or allow animal testing? The US and UK govt's are singled out in the lede. On the other hand, the anti-testing movement is probably the noisiest in these countries, so it seem appropriate to mention PETA and BUAV in the lede. In the EU animal testing is increasingly regulated from Brussels; there's a bit of discussion about that in the article, mostly in relation to cosmetics, but this is not mentioned at all. Xasodfuih ( talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about globalisation, however, this article really should pay more attention to the fact that tightening animal regulations in one country may result in companies outsourcing research to countries with less restrictive regulations. This is discussed a bit here. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Although animal testing is the common term it is not the most accurate. Animal research encompasses all manner of animal experiments, whereas animal testing generally means safety testing. For instance when breeding two animals in order to experiment on the young, you would say you have "tested" on the parents, but you would have been part of the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm planning to write a paragraph about the 2006-2008 events described in PMID 18371494, mostly about attacks on scientists involved in non-human primate research. I hope the source is acceptable. Xasodfuih ( talk) 12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I backed out a bunch of changes made by jrtayloriv. There were numerous reasons. The lead photo, for example, was a heavily debated, consensus change, many months ago, and should be subject to debate. The space chimp, while dated, is a picture of animal testing provided by the animal testers, and is not as subject to claims of bias as the photos taken by animal rights activists. The ALF is not mentioned in the lead NOT because of omission of their viewpoint, but because the lead cannot mention everything, and BUAV and PETA are already linked in the lead. The addition of photos to the pain and suffering section lengthens the page, which already exceeds good page length guidelines, and the tag on the monkey photo was inappropriate, wrong, and unreferenced. The changes, en todo, were heavily biased, without adding referenced material. And the Silver Spring monkeys photo, because of the suspicion that it was staged by Pacheco (which is referenced on the Silver Spring monkey page), is not suitable on this page, but is suitable on the Silver Spring monkey page. -- Animalresearcher ( talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just happened by and noted that the section of regulation is pretty sparse, especially given that I've had to sit through 3-hour classes on the subject 3 times now. There's a half-dozen agencies involved, loads of rules that can be linked to, more detailed descriptions of IACUC procedures, and a description of penalties for violations. As it stands, it makes no mention of the usual bi-annual IACUC inspections, the random surprise inspections from any of the half-dozen regulatory bodies, or the extremely high cost for even minor violations (I recall hearing of one minor issue garnering a $10,000 *per day* fine). It also gives the impression that IACUC 'rubber-stamps' most things, when in reality, any procedure differing from the most common and routine can take months of back-and-forth to get accepted. Oh, it also doesn't mention that at many institutions, all animal care is handled by assistants directly employed by IACUC. Unfortunately, I'm bogged down in editing articles closer to my research area, but the information should be all over the web - including 'IACUC' in a google search will often bring up entire PDF documents with 40+ pages of policy. Mokele ( talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the sources are no longer present [web page removed, etc.] Can someone fix them please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.76.210 ( talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The link for the "animals used for animal testing" diagram, link number 40, does not work, it is: 40^ a b c Fifth Report on the Statistics on the Number of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in the Member States of the European Union Commission of the European Communities, published November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.101.145 ( talk) 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please delete this section in the discussion page once the edit is completed.
Due to the page being locked, I am not authorised to fix this sentence:
"These attacks, as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme," this prompted the US government to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.[177] "
It is not a funtional sentence and could possibly be repaired by removing the word "this" as in: extreme," this prompted the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElTimbalino ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The citation given doesn't appear to me to state any documented views of anti vivisectionists about pure research. Possibly modify this statement, unless citations can be found supporting the assertion ?
"Those opposed to animal testing object that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it may produce unforeseen benefits, rendering the distinction between pure and applied research — research that has a specific practical aim — unclear.[99]" -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm moving this fairly recent addition here, because it isn't neutral, and making it so would make the lead too long.
The practice of animal testing is regulated to various extents in different countries. In 1984 the WHO's Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) issued International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals, and developed countries have instituted regulatory frameworks that are more extensive. In the United States and in many other countries, review committees serve as gatekeepers for determining whether the use of animals proposed is warranted. They examine protocols to see if these can be improved by reducing or replacing animal use, and aim to minimize suffering. [1] The trend in developed nations to offshore trials in biomedical research has also affected preclinical testing on animals, although to a lesser extent than clinical trials on humans. [2]
The anti-testing position is that the regulations are a joke, and that animal labs are not properly inspected. As this is a major complaint about animal testing, we would need to elaborate in some detail. I therefore suggest we leave this for the body of the text. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to explain why I have reverted some edits that, in effect, include animal observation within the "broader" definition of vivisection. Unless an editor can find a reliable source that specifically includes that definition (as opposed to describing kinds of experimental studies in which animals are observed, but without using the word vivisection), it seems to me that defining the term in this way is unverifiable. But I think I understand what the editor might be getting at: there are some critics of animal experimentation who consider even noninvasive studies of animals to be ethically improper. However, I am not aware of a scholarly use of the word vivisection for that. Perhaps a referenced example could be found of a critic of research misusing the word vivisection in this way, which might be interesting to include, and to which I would have no objection. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to use wiki very well so I'm not sure how to explain this but scroll to the bottom of Animal Testing(and 'Blind Experiment' among others) and you will see this:
No idea what that include is or how to remove it just bringing it to someone's attention. It's the "Medical research studies" include that you use with these brackets { } —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.209.193.189 (
talk •
contribs) 07:49, 4 November 2009
I think the title needs to be re-thought, as well as the whole section. Firstly, the inclusion of Dolly seems out of place among the other cases. Secondly, the title is misleading - these are prominent *abuse* cases. "Prominent cases" would better describe prominent research that has used animals, such as the use of frogs to understand muscle physiology, squid to understand neurons, Drosophila for genetics, etc. And last, but by far not least, it strikes me as highly NPOV to have a two-page list of abuse cases without any similarly sizable section on benefits. Mokele ( talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The LEAD section should refer roughly proportionally to the material in the page. The Fbrnabr edits, while referenced, distorted the LEAD from its prior balance - a balance which had been carefully sought and fought over. Including that much PRO-testing advocacy in the lead will require space for rebuttal - and the page will degenerate into a fight over advocacy. Advocacy has its place - pro AND con - but this page is about the use of animals in testing, teaching, and research, and not principally about advocacy. -- Animalresearcher ( talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I find this terminology a bit strange:
Is "non-human animals" a standard terminology used in animal testing nowdays? (Í've seen it used elsewhere in a similar context.) To me it seems a bit POV, 'left-wing', 'politically correct'. Are we equating humans to animals here? Sorry for being 'specie-ist' but wouldn't plain 'animal' do? -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see that this answers my question. Surely 'animal' means 'non-human'? That seems clear to me. And I am a layperson not involved in animal testing. My question still, is 'non-human animals' a common term in this context? To me adding to animal is mere 'puffery'. -- 220.101.28.25 ( talk) 09:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"Non-human animal" is the standard term, both in the science and bureaucracy of this topic. There's also no controversy - humans are animals, and to claim otherwise is like claiming flowers aren't plants. Mokele ( talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you first ask - "Is it unclear?" - I think the answer is no. The title of the page is not non-human animal testing, nor has anyone ever posted anything under that topic anywhere. Dictionary definitions include both humans as animals (strictly speaking in terms of whether a species belongs to the animal kingdom), but also a common usage of animals to refer to species that are animals but not humans. The rationale for including the modifier non-human on animals is that you want to remind the reader that humans are animals, too. In other words, this is an issue of WP:NPOV, and not an issue of clarity.-- Animalresearcher ( talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I restored the original term "non-human animal" because I believe it is shorter, simpler and clearer than the other language, which assumes an undefined sequence (from X to Y). Crum375 ( talk) 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, how is it hard to understand this? Any "from____ to ____" is poor phrasing, unscientific, uninformative, and actively perpetuates an obsolete concept. Pretty words are not more important than accuracy. If you do not understand this concept, go back to editing Family Guy episode summaries. An encyclopedia which is not accurate is worthless, however 'readable' it is.
Mokele (
talk)
18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)