![]() | 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. |
I moved this back to Animal testing, because that's the more common expression and the one used by the industry: animal testing gets 1,800,000 hits on Google, and animal experimentation gets 483,000. I also removed the expert tag because it was added by an anonymous IP address. I've left the NPOV tag up for now, but the editor who added it needs to make suggestions that are actionable within our policies for how it could be improved, or else the tag isn't being used correctly. I'd say the problem with this article isn't so much POV, as poor writing, poor organization, and a lack of facts from good sources on both sides.
I also removed this paragraph: "Animal testing has been used to help treat rabies, smallpox, anthrax, congenital heart diseases, rickets, diabetes, tetanus, rheumatoid arthritis, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, mood disorders, rubella, measles and leprosy. The models have been used to make surgeries safer by testing anesthestics and anti-rejection drugs as well as developing techniques in cardiac bypass and laproscopic surgery. Animal models have the most scientific background and the highest likelihood of assisting in new treatments for cancer, HIV, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and other terminal illnesses that are currently without any cure."
I removed it because it's unsourced, and given the controversy that this page is in part about, we can't just state "animal testing has been used to help treat x, y, and z," without producing sources showing that it really did "help to treat" those diseases. The counter-argument is that animal testing does not always further research into diseases. So a source would need to be produced to show for each illness that animal testing had, in fact, advanced research into treatment options for that illness. Also, it wasn't clear what was meant by "[a]nimal models have the most scientific background." If it was meant to say that using animal models is good science, then again, this is begging the question: many scientists say it is, some say it isn't, so the view would have to be attributed to a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Much thanks, these links are great! Let me know what you think of the current incarnation of the utility paragraph. Also a question about citing: suppose, just you know, hypothetically, that I know a lot about keratinocytes because my cell biology professor was the first person to successfully culture them in vitro. My source is definitely not published (i.e., my lecture notes), but I think it still constitutes a reliable source. What do you think? 69.205.169.113 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Another stupid goof. Try it now.
None of these are cited.
Are we: a) trying to represent the views that may be put forth by opponents, whether they are justified by data or not
or
b) supplying actual data regarding these points
For instance: When it says that "Some drugs have exactly the opposite effect on human and non-human animals; for example, morphine and aspirin", it is a) TRUE that this argument is often put forth, but b) FALSE that morphine and aspirin have opposite effects.
How shall we deal with this? 69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Apologies, it's signed now. Still getting the hang of this stuff. The reason I included the "utility" section was in response to the comment that the "abuse" section made the article imbalanced. Upon further consideration, though, I think "abuse" might be a tangential issue that should be moved to a separate page--it's not an integral component of animal testing and people who defend animal testing don't defend abuse.
As far as the individual points, I worry that even with citations, some points might not be justified. The following comment is very not NPOV, so I apologize, but here goes: I have found that very many anti-animal testing sites have manipulated information and taken it out of context so that it's no longer useful. I'll go back to the aspirin/morphine example just for the sake of consistency--this example has been cited very often in anti-animal testing literature, but the problem is that it's not true. (I have read the studies they come from, and the effects they're referring to happen at doses about 500x what's administered to humans.) So I guess we're back to the question of verifiability v. truth. Does verifiability still win? 69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason I say abuse is tangential to the topic of "Animal testing" is because the purpose of animal testing is to provide the most reliable data with the fewest confounds, and abuse is a confound in and of itself. I think the factors you bring up are absolutely concerns, but the factors currently in the abuse section (simulating sex, dancing to pop music, live dissection) are absolutely not integral to the scientific process. These things are at the heart of the "Animal abuse" discussion, but I maintain, are not really the point of animal testing. 69.205.169.113 00:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying, but I think the problem is this: some of the matters are fact, and some of the matters are debatable.
FACT: the point of animal testing is to further scientific knowledge. DEBATE: animal testing can't further scientific knowledge. FACT: the people who do animal testing are scientists DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are intrinsically abusers FACT: the people who do animal testing have an interest in good science DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are careless and cannot perform good science
Do you see what I'm getting at? There's a difference between the intentions and the ends of animal science, that much is certain. But I think it's important to clarify between fact and debate. To me, the best way to do that was to allow the "abuse" section to remain in there and add in the "utility" section to balance it out.
Even if abuse is absolutely inescapable in animal testing--which is NOT certain--it is still not the goal of any scientist.
Do you think this is a situation where we could request comments? 128.226.37.139 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, crap, this is "69.205.169.113" from a different IP address.
By all means, send me the article you got that from.
Without seeing it, I am willing to make some hypothetical suggestions about it: (1) in a lot of species, baby monkeys cling to their mother's stomach as the mom walks around, so hanging upside down is not nearly as unpleasant for them as it is for human beings. (2) if the room was dark, and they were separated from their mothers, maybe the study was looking at the relationship between attachment and visual perception. Maybe they were looking at perception and found the mother to be a confound. Maybe they were looking at attachment and found sight distracting.
What I'm saying is, just because the intent of a study isn't immediately obvious doesn't mean it's a) not scientific or b) not resulting in knowledge
So since you wanted definitions:
Main Entry: knowl·edge Pronunciation: 'nä-lij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned 4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind b archaic : a branch of learning
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
You'll have to go beyond dictionary definitions for something like this. The above are all circular anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Main Entry: sci·en·tist Pronunciation: 'sI-&n-tist Function: noun Etymology: Latin scientia
1 : a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
I really don't think I'm going out on a limb with my use of these words.
You are absolutely right that it is within the realm of conceivable possibilities that:
1. A person might intentionally want to abuse animals
2. That person might study something completely useless and call it science
3. A university would embrace this useless faux-science and grant the person tenure
4. Someone would grant lots of money to study the faux-science
5. The person would take the money and tenure and use them to kill, torture, and maim lots of animals and call it "research"
6. This research would produce no useable results, yet it would still be published in peer-reviewed journals
7. The faux-scientist would maintain his tenure and funding and continue abusing animals indefinitely
But this situation is so unlikely that I don't understand why it should be considered "neutral".
I think the request should be twofold.
First, my initial question was whether we are trying to represent all views, even when they contradict data, OR are we trying to actually supply facts and figures that are useful to both sides?
Second, I think we should have some more perspectives on what it means to be neutral in this situation. Is it neutral to say that animal testing has the intention of advancing knowledge/gathering data/pursuing science? I understand that there is a debate about whether or not animal testing is ethical. But I don't think an actual debate exists over WHY people do animal testing, except maybe in an extreme minority. This point specifically is what I'm most interested in hearing feedback about. -"69.205.169.113"
I am aware of the editorial policies. Using words in a way that's consistent with their dictionary definition IS a NPOV, is NOT original research, and IS verifiable.
It is not fair for you to presume that you know the intentions of scientists better than the scientists themselves. It is not acceptable to suggest that the institution of science as a whole is useless, a conspiracy, or both. I understand the necessity of including minority and flat earth perspectives, but as the article stands these views dominate. The one paragraph I wrote with the useful outcomes of animal testing was deleted two or three times. That's not neutral. Enough is enough.
Also your comment about my lack of academic and professional experience was a personal attack, and it was incorrect. Since you brought it up, I will correct you, but please don't take this as an invitation to try to "out-qualify" me by bringing up your own experience. The first lab I worked in used animal models to study the cerebellum's role in learning and memory (this was later used to study Alzheimer's Disease). The lab I work in now uses animal models to study differential effects of alcohol on adolescents and adults.
I would have expected better from an admin. 69.205.174.23 18:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote the intro, largely using a UK government report as a source, which I've referenced as a couple of embedded links. I also removed the "expert" tag, because I don't know what would count as an expert in an area like this, so the tag didn't make much sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
To the anon IP: you asked for details of the famous experiment where monkeys were hanged upside down. It was conducted in the 70s by Harry Harlow and Stephen Suomi. They took six-week-old rhesus monkeys, and placed them upside down in vertical-shaped stainless steel containers for between 45 days and two years. The aim was to produce what they called a "well of despair" to cause depression in the monkeys. Photographs of the chambers are here. [3] [4] [5] They were fed through a grid at the bottom. When they emerged, they were psychotic, and never recovered. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article focuses heavily on abuses committed against animals in the name of research. Because the article is about animal testing, maybe it would be a good idea to include more types of research involving animals, abusive or otherwise. This could include genetic engineering, developmental and embryological research, psychological experiments, and so on. I feel that the section on these subjects should be expanded - right now, in the "Types of Experiment" section, only toxicology tests are included, though the article describes other types of testing in later sections. Those sections should be rearranged so that they aren't sandwiched between blocks of text all about abuse and how it can be prevented. They seem kind of disconnected from the "Types of Experiment" section.
The picture of the rabbit can stay, since it helps describe the Draize test, but I think the picture of the rat undergoing an LD50 test can be removed, since just looking at the picture doesn't tell much. I think it is mislabelled as a mouse as well. At the very least, it is in the wrong section.
We could then have a brief section that says that there is a lot of controversy and opposition to animal testing, with a link to another article like Cruelty to animals or Vivisection and experimentation debate. Then a lot of the abuses presently described in the Animal Testing article could be added to one of those articles. Is it really necessary to include PETA and BUAV's work in exposing Huntingdon Life Sciences and Convance in this article? It seems to me like it would better serve the reader to treat animal abuse in a general sense here, and then have the specific offenses described in one of the other related articles.
There is already a link in the Animal Testing article under the Controversy heading that refers readers to the Vivisection and experimentation debate page. It says that that is the main article, but there is quite a lot of information right under that link describing the controversy, as well as abuse. Abuse is closely tied to the controversy, so it is important to mention, but it would probably make things simpler if there was one centralized article with research-related abuse, rather than two of them. Gary 04:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed this again after someone re-added them. "Many, if not most, human diseases are caused by poor nutrition, smoking, {Alcohol abuse|drinking]], drug use and misuse, stress, and lack of exercise. Researching and taking action against these would be relatively cheap and effective."
This line is a dubious personal comment (hastily inserted to get a point across) without source and assumes like many other statements that most diseases are a result of a sedentary lifestyle. (meaning only the affluent western world) AIDS is the number one killer in most parts of the developing world (read a larger % of world population) followed by other diseases. But that is missing the point; there is no source and even if it were provided, it is a flimsy argument here. Research on these "other diseases" is already going on and it does in no way seems be like an opposition. Infact one cannot abandon research on serious diseases just to study alcohol abuses etc. whose effects are already well documented.
The issue is this: this argument confuses serious diseases with lifestyle problems. drugs/exercise/stress are all lifestyle related ones and everyone fully knows their effects and how to improve them i.e. stop drugs/cigarettes or improve diet/workouts etc.. AIDS/Cancer/Influenza are NOT simply lifestyle oriented ailments and no one knows how to cure a virus, yet. So please stop adding arguments for the sake of adding as it sounds childish. Idleguy 05:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've started trying to make this article more factual and more descriptive of what animal testing is, rather than just having a list of pro and con arguments. I've taken a lot of the information so far from BUAV, which relies on reports from the British government, so the information is sound, but it's very oriented to the UK at the moment. When I next do some research, I'll try to get similar information for the U.S. and Japan, which are the two big testers outside Europe.
I started a section describing the different kinds of tests that tend to be performed. So far I've only written the toxicology one. Other sections could include practising surgical and dental techniques, brain research, psychological testing, lung research. Or we could section these into pure research and applied research.
I also tried to tidy the writing a little in the cosmetics and alternatives sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two matters I think should be commented on:
(1) Should we represent all sides of the argument, including misused data, in the interest of neutrality? I mean things like:
"aspirin, for example, is a teratogen in animals, but not in humans"
Aspirin causes teratogenesis and death in animals at doses that are also toxic to human beings. The reason there isn't a body of literature on aspirin-based death and birth defects in humans is because we would have to take 50 or 60 tablets in one day to produce those kinds of effects. There is some data that shows birth defects in babies born to mothers who regularly consume a great deal of aspirin. The point is: this argument IS put forth by the opponents to animal testing, but this argument is NOT factually accurate. Do we leave things like that in this article or not?
(On a related note: thalidomide was never tested on pregnant animals, hence its inability to predict birth defects, and an animal model for Parkinson's Disease can be induced by a drug called MTPT--this in particular is so prevalent in the literature regarding learning and memory that it's a particularly egregious factual error to have in an encyclopedia.)
(2) I want to hear from new, neutral voices whether it is a biased "point of view" that scientists use animal models to try to learn things, or if that can be generally accepted as a true statement. Again, I understand that some people believe that scientists use animal models for no other purpose, with no other intention, than torturing animals, but I would like for people to comment on whether or not this is an extreme, fringe, minority view, or one that should be represented equally. 69.205.174.23 19:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they heard "eminent witnesses", but obviously not on the particular subject of aspirin. Their cited source for that argument was the BUAV, who in turn cite this study: Robertson, R.T et al, (1979). Teratology, 21:313-20
This is the abstract of that study:
Experimental Teratology
Aspirin: Teratogenic evaluation in the dog Richard T. Robertson, Henry L. Allen, Delwin L. Bokelman Department of Safety Assessment, Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research, West Point, Pennsylvania 19486
Abstract Beagle bitches were administered aspirin at either 100 or 400 mg/kg/day between Days 15 and 22 or Days 23 and 30 postmating, and corresponding control groups were dosed with vehicle during one of these same time periods. Maternotoxicity was evident in all dogs dosed with 400 mg/kg/day of aspirin, but no signs of toxicity were observed in dogs at the lower dosage level. An increase in the number of resorptions was observed when 400 mg/kg/day of aspirin was administered from Days 16 to 22 postmating. Teratogenicity, as evidenced by 50% malformation rate, was seen in fetuses from dams treated with 400 mg/kg/day on Days 23 to 30 postmating. Observed malformations included, but were not limited to cleft palate, micrognathia, anasarca, cardiovascular malformations, and tail anomalies. No evidence of embryotoxic or teratogenic effects was seen in fetuses from either 100 mg/kg/day dosage level group. Examination of fetuses from 12 untreated litters and 4 vehicle-control litters revealed a very low spontaneous malformation rate confined almost entirely to minor tail abnormalities. These data support use of the dog as an acceptable alternative species in teratogenic screening.
Emphasis mine.
Note that at the dosage of 400 mg/kg/day, a 50kg human being would be consuming 20,000 mg of aspirin per day. In the usual 325mg tablets, that's about 61 tablets--exactly what I told you earlier.
Check your facts, even if the BUAV is too lazy and obsessed with their agenda to bother.
I am asking you not to represent it as fact when even your source does not. See their citation regarding Parkinson's: 69 BUAV (p. 89). The MRC disagree (p. 221), as do the Parkinson's Disease Society of the UK (p. 251). Back
Gee whiz, once again the BUAV is pushing their agenda and ignoring science. THAT is why I don't want this brought up, NOT because of my personal opinions.
This is NOT a contested claim. I did not call a single one of the contributions significant. I did not state that those advancements would have been impossible by other means. I only stated--and this is a verifiable, nondisputable fact--that animal testing WAS used in each and everyone of those circumstances.
It is just as much a fact that animal testing was used in those circumstances as it is a fact that 100 million animals are killed every year.
I could just as easily suggest that those animals would be killed by predators in the wild, or kept as pets, or used to make carpets out of if they weren't used for animal testing! But the fact is that those animals WERE killed because of animal testing. Those treatments WERE the result of animal testing.
The only reason I brought up the REAL reason scientists use animals is because you had listed a bunch of peripheral arguments that have basically nothing to do with why scientists use animals. I really thought it would be obvious that the scientists who are doing the animal testing, and thus preferring animals to other models, would be the scientists who support animal testing, but if you want that spelled out than just spell it out instead of repeatedly deleting EVERY SINGLE THING I ADD TO THIS ARTICLE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOUR POV.
By the way, you didn't explain why you deleted the section in which I did explain, in numbers, with cited sources, which scientists and doctors support animal testing.
Fine, I'll relocate it when those sections are created.
This seems to misunderstand the different types of tests. Does anyone know what was used as as source? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added a section on the different regulatory systems: so far, U.S., UK, Japan, and France. I'd like to find China too, though apparently they have little regulation.
I also think I may have gotten the numbers of animals used annually in the U.S. wrong. I took the figure 1,101,958 from here [19] and they're government figures, so they should be right, but on other U.S. govt websites, I've read that two million per year, or ten per cent, are used in toxicology tests, which suggests 20 million a year. It's possible that the numbers in the table should have some zeros added, but it doesn't say that anywhere, and anyway that still wouldn't give us 20 million. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
At what stage will the warning be removed? Who judges this page neutral or otherwise, and how?
It is established fact that the overwhelming majority of the biomedical research community, and neutral observers (see many recent UK reports, eg Royal Society 2002, House of Lords 2002, The Lancet 2004, Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2005) agree that animal research is scientifically valid.
Most of this dispute seems to contest the established scientific POV by use of biassed sources, largely single issue pressure groups (BUAV is most definitely not neutral, neither is the source for the rabbit "draize test" picture which I have just removed as it does not depict the Draize test). These sources are neither scientific nor representative of anything other than a small minority view (see MORI opinion research for in depth examination of UK public opinion, which is largely supportive of animal research).
Will this dispute drag on interminably and unproductively with endless edits and counter edits? Would it not be better to delete this page altogether and start afresh? 217.206.196.219 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Toxicology tests and drug testing make up about 15% of animal procedures in the UK and likely the rest of the world (you can get comprehensive stats from the UK Home Office [20]). So what about basic and applied research and drug development (although efficacy tests and metabolic studies, which are under presently under drug testing, are part of drug development), and breeding of GM animals?
Because it is incomplete, this section is skewed. It needs to be rearranged and added to.
Worse, the specific toxicology test section is largely unreferenced, inaccurate and misleading: it reads as though it has come straight from antivivisection propaganda. This section needs to be more factual, neutral and contain citations.
Non-neutral antivivisection organisations, particularly BUAV, are extensivley cited throughout this entry. To promote overall neutrality it would be a good idea to cite some of the more scientifically based organisations such as RDS [21], CMP [22], the Biomedical Research Education Trust [23] or the Royal Society [24]. One of the most recent, neutral and comprehensive sources on the whole issue of animals in medical research is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report [25] but it doesn't get cited at all. 82.6.117.213 12:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
An anon just added this: "According to the U.S. Foundation for Biomedical Research, "[a]nimal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health." [5] Since its inception in 1901, approximately 70% of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine have been awarded for medical advances that have depended on animal research. Examples which have changed the world include the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplantation (dogs) and work on poliovirus that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys).[6][7]"
I think this will need to be edited down; it's going to make the intro too long because we've yet to add a pro-testing paragraph. The first two paras are descriptive, and the last two were going to be pro-testing and anti-testing, one each. The inclusion of a second pro-testing para throws this off balance. I won't edit it just yet because I want to write the anti-testing one first, then check for length. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we have some neutral sources for these statements that have been languishing for quite sometime now?
"* Most animal testing is conducted for non-medical reason
and to a lesser extent this statement too which is a bit confusing...
"* The animal-testing industry is a multi-million dollar concern. Advocates of testing may argue that their interests are scientific, but they are just as often commercial."
Does it mean that there is an "animal testing industry"? A term that fetches around 232 hits on Google with the first one propping from Wikipedia (so padding up the count with its forks and mirrors). The rest are mostly from biased groups. It would certainly be interesting to know the turnover of this "industry". Drug research firms would be a more neutral term, but I'm afraid that some editors holding extreme POV would think otherwise.
I've tagged it as dubious and are likely to be removed unless the source is provided soon. Idleguy 07:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I decided this discussion is sterile and going nowhere. I make comments or requests for changes which are ignored or rubbished. So I have started editing to remove unsupported statements, claims and inaccuracies (eg Oxford University is NOT building a primate centre!) and add in more factual information. I have got as far as the toxicology section.
The abuse section needs a total rewrite, based as it is on BUAV's partial view of their own infiltration of Cambridge University. I will try to do this next.
If someone else can add to the types of test section (Idleguy? that would be great. At the moment it only covers about 15% of animal experimentation. If no-one wants to take this on, I will also try to tackle this in the next month or so. 82.6.117.213 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I've started working towards a description of the regulations that apply to the use of non-human primates. Hopefully Wikiversity will be started soon and this will become an organized Wikiversity research effort; Laboratory animals in biomedical research. -- JWSchmidt 00:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Abuse
Clip from undercover footage filmed in 1997 by PETA inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.Undercover investigations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have documented and filmed examples of animal abuse in laboratories, and of animals being used in questionable experiments.
PETA filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, punching puppies in the face, screaming at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples [43] (video). The film was subsequently shown as "It's a Dog's Life" on Channel 4 television in the UK in 1997, as a result of which Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was formed, an international campaign to close HLS. In the United States, HLS technicians were filmed screaming and laughing at monkeys, and appearing to dissect one that was still alive [44] (video).
BUAV filmed staff in Covance, Europe's largest primate-testing center based in Germany, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them [45] (video).
In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their brains exposed and no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five.
The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "Cambridge staff work 9-5pm, so animals who had just been brain damaged were left overnight without veterinary attention. Some were found to be dead in the morning, some were found to be in a worse condition. Yet there is an obligation of licence holders to keep suffering to a minimum. The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on." [46]
The Cambridge experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for pure- and applied-research purposes, in the interests of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first of all trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by cutting or sucking out parts of the macaque's brains, or by injecting toxins, after which the monkeys were re-tested to determine whether the damage had affected their skills. The macaques were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, both before and after the surgery, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours for the duration of the experiment, with intermittent respite. [47] [48] (video)
In 2003, according to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [49] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to the National Institutes of Health, PETA described one experiment: "On September 19, 2001, baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21, 2001, the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' With no further notation about consulting with a veterinarian, the record reads, 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in the cage.'" [50]
In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" [51] (pdf).
This is the version posted by 86 (note from JWS: I assume "86" was meant to be "82" = 82.6.117.213; the version posted 17:40, 26 November 2005) (BTW, you can see all this in history). It could do with some more references, but I think it is more balanced:
Infiltrations
Clip from undercover footage filmed in 1997 inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.Infiltrations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have alleged that animals are abused and used in questionable experiments in laboratories.
An infiltator filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, punching puppies in the face, screaming at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples [43] (video). The film was subsequently shown as "It's a Dog's Life" on Channel 4 television in the UK in 1997, as a result of which Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was formed, an international campaign to close HLS. In the United States, HLS technicians were filmed screaming and laughing at monkeys, and appearing to dissect one that was still alive [44] (video).
After the UK incident the staff involved were dismissed and prosecuted and new management was brought in. It was one of only two infiltrations in the UK in which allegationms of major misconduct were upheld. The other occurred in 1990 when an elderly Professor was filmed working on under-anaesthetised animals.
In recent years BUAV have infiltrated the laboratory breeders Harlan UK, Cambridge University, and a contract research laboratory in Germany. On each occasion their allegations were thoroughly investigated and none were upheld [45] [46].
In 2003, according to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [47] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" [48] (pdf).
I think the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report [26] may have said something on infiltrations, so I'll see if I can find it. 217.206.196.218 09:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"Infiltrations" vs "Undercover investigations"
I just spent a lot of time reading at the PETA and BUAV websites. I'm not sure that "infiltration" is the best word to use in describing what is done by PETA and BUAV. My search of their websites indicates that these group rarely use the term "infiltration". "Undercover investigation" seems to convey what is done and there is no reason Wikipedia cannot use the term that these groups seem to prefer to use to describe their own actions.
The title of this section is a mater of dispute ("Abuse" vs "Infiltrations"). It might be wise to have a longer section title reflecting expansion of this section to cover both the problems found by conventional inspections and the results of undercover investigations. I think everyone can agree that it is important to find, document and prevent animal abuse and problems in how animals are used for research. Here is a longer section title, probably too long, but descriptive: Violations of animal care regulations revealed by inspections and investigations.
It is my understanding that (at least in the United States) official inspectors routinely cite institutions for violations of animal care regulations. Wikipedia should describe the number and nature of these violations and what remedies follow the issue of these citations. I think all this information is available from the USDA. This description of violations of regulations would flow naturally into a description of results from un-official undercover investigations, but there could be a description of why PETA and BUAV do not think that conventional inspections are adequate. My view is that the description of these undercover investigations should not only be an account given by PETA or BUAV. If a legal case results from an undercover investigation, the results of that legal case need to be described. I also think Wikipedia needs to make an effort to determine if some "undercover investigations" by PETA and BUAV do not result in a legal finding of animal abuse first example I found.
Beyond documentation of violations of animal care regulations and clear cases of animal abuse, there is the more difficult issue of "questionable experiments". In the United States, all animal experiments have to be justified before they take place. This is not generally something that is decided by inspections or undercover investigations. An example that is mentioned at the Wikipedia BUAV article is use of the LD50 test and how its use was questioned in Britain. My suggestion is that "questionable experiments" be addressed in the Controversy section of the Animal testing article, maybe by pointing to specific examples like the LD50 test.
I am still working my way through the rest of the two versions of the Abuse/Infiltrations section. -- JWSchmidt 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The following paragraph was added by 82.6.117.213 and then removed by SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin's edit comment "deleting unsourced additions" might apply:
I think it is useful for Wikipedia to provide a short account of what actions are taken to correct problems after an investigation takes place and what the results of any legal cases were. Citations references that provide the details are needed. In my reading, I also saw a webpage that made the argument that there have been "two infiltrations in the UK in which allegations of major misconduct were upheld"; if that source can be found and cited, then it seems reasonable to include the second and third sentences from the paragraph (above) in the Animal testing article.
The following paragraph was added by 82.6.117.213 and then removed by SlimVirgin.
It seems reasonable to include mention of examples of undercover investigations that did not result in findings of animal abuse. I have a problem getting the URL provided as reference #46 to work for me. Maybe a functioning URL could be found or maybe that example could be replaced by this one. -- JWSchmidt 16:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Four paragraphs starting with "BUAV filmed staff in Covance...." were deleted by 82.6.117.213 without any reason that I can find.
The second half of the next paragraph was also deleted:
Are those paragraphs under dispute? -- JWSchmidt 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The big question is, who is going to resolve disputes and make changes, and how do we know that SlimVirgin will not simply revert to his/her favourite previous version? 82.6.117.213 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I just changed the bit in Numbers where SlimVirgin has referenced Nuffield Council on Bioethics as estimating the global numbers at between 50 and 100 million. I can't find anywhere that they say this. They give figures for USA, Europe and Japan only, as far as I can see. BUAV is the only source as far as I know that mentions 100 million. I would annotate my edits with explanations in history, but I can't see how to do that. 82.6.117.213 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
I moved this back to Animal testing, because that's the more common expression and the one used by the industry: animal testing gets 1,800,000 hits on Google, and animal experimentation gets 483,000. I also removed the expert tag because it was added by an anonymous IP address. I've left the NPOV tag up for now, but the editor who added it needs to make suggestions that are actionable within our policies for how it could be improved, or else the tag isn't being used correctly. I'd say the problem with this article isn't so much POV, as poor writing, poor organization, and a lack of facts from good sources on both sides.
I also removed this paragraph: "Animal testing has been used to help treat rabies, smallpox, anthrax, congenital heart diseases, rickets, diabetes, tetanus, rheumatoid arthritis, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, mood disorders, rubella, measles and leprosy. The models have been used to make surgeries safer by testing anesthestics and anti-rejection drugs as well as developing techniques in cardiac bypass and laproscopic surgery. Animal models have the most scientific background and the highest likelihood of assisting in new treatments for cancer, HIV, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and other terminal illnesses that are currently without any cure."
I removed it because it's unsourced, and given the controversy that this page is in part about, we can't just state "animal testing has been used to help treat x, y, and z," without producing sources showing that it really did "help to treat" those diseases. The counter-argument is that animal testing does not always further research into diseases. So a source would need to be produced to show for each illness that animal testing had, in fact, advanced research into treatment options for that illness. Also, it wasn't clear what was meant by "[a]nimal models have the most scientific background." If it was meant to say that using animal models is good science, then again, this is begging the question: many scientists say it is, some say it isn't, so the view would have to be attributed to a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Much thanks, these links are great! Let me know what you think of the current incarnation of the utility paragraph. Also a question about citing: suppose, just you know, hypothetically, that I know a lot about keratinocytes because my cell biology professor was the first person to successfully culture them in vitro. My source is definitely not published (i.e., my lecture notes), but I think it still constitutes a reliable source. What do you think? 69.205.169.113 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Another stupid goof. Try it now.
None of these are cited.
Are we: a) trying to represent the views that may be put forth by opponents, whether they are justified by data or not
or
b) supplying actual data regarding these points
For instance: When it says that "Some drugs have exactly the opposite effect on human and non-human animals; for example, morphine and aspirin", it is a) TRUE that this argument is often put forth, but b) FALSE that morphine and aspirin have opposite effects.
How shall we deal with this? 69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Apologies, it's signed now. Still getting the hang of this stuff. The reason I included the "utility" section was in response to the comment that the "abuse" section made the article imbalanced. Upon further consideration, though, I think "abuse" might be a tangential issue that should be moved to a separate page--it's not an integral component of animal testing and people who defend animal testing don't defend abuse.
As far as the individual points, I worry that even with citations, some points might not be justified. The following comment is very not NPOV, so I apologize, but here goes: I have found that very many anti-animal testing sites have manipulated information and taken it out of context so that it's no longer useful. I'll go back to the aspirin/morphine example just for the sake of consistency--this example has been cited very often in anti-animal testing literature, but the problem is that it's not true. (I have read the studies they come from, and the effects they're referring to happen at doses about 500x what's administered to humans.) So I guess we're back to the question of verifiability v. truth. Does verifiability still win? 69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason I say abuse is tangential to the topic of "Animal testing" is because the purpose of animal testing is to provide the most reliable data with the fewest confounds, and abuse is a confound in and of itself. I think the factors you bring up are absolutely concerns, but the factors currently in the abuse section (simulating sex, dancing to pop music, live dissection) are absolutely not integral to the scientific process. These things are at the heart of the "Animal abuse" discussion, but I maintain, are not really the point of animal testing. 69.205.169.113 00:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying, but I think the problem is this: some of the matters are fact, and some of the matters are debatable.
FACT: the point of animal testing is to further scientific knowledge. DEBATE: animal testing can't further scientific knowledge. FACT: the people who do animal testing are scientists DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are intrinsically abusers FACT: the people who do animal testing have an interest in good science DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are careless and cannot perform good science
Do you see what I'm getting at? There's a difference between the intentions and the ends of animal science, that much is certain. But I think it's important to clarify between fact and debate. To me, the best way to do that was to allow the "abuse" section to remain in there and add in the "utility" section to balance it out.
Even if abuse is absolutely inescapable in animal testing--which is NOT certain--it is still not the goal of any scientist.
Do you think this is a situation where we could request comments? 128.226.37.139 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, crap, this is "69.205.169.113" from a different IP address.
By all means, send me the article you got that from.
Without seeing it, I am willing to make some hypothetical suggestions about it: (1) in a lot of species, baby monkeys cling to their mother's stomach as the mom walks around, so hanging upside down is not nearly as unpleasant for them as it is for human beings. (2) if the room was dark, and they were separated from their mothers, maybe the study was looking at the relationship between attachment and visual perception. Maybe they were looking at perception and found the mother to be a confound. Maybe they were looking at attachment and found sight distracting.
What I'm saying is, just because the intent of a study isn't immediately obvious doesn't mean it's a) not scientific or b) not resulting in knowledge
So since you wanted definitions:
Main Entry: knowl·edge Pronunciation: 'nä-lij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned 4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind b archaic : a branch of learning
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
You'll have to go beyond dictionary definitions for something like this. The above are all circular anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Main Entry: sci·en·tist Pronunciation: 'sI-&n-tist Function: noun Etymology: Latin scientia
1 : a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
I really don't think I'm going out on a limb with my use of these words.
You are absolutely right that it is within the realm of conceivable possibilities that:
1. A person might intentionally want to abuse animals
2. That person might study something completely useless and call it science
3. A university would embrace this useless faux-science and grant the person tenure
4. Someone would grant lots of money to study the faux-science
5. The person would take the money and tenure and use them to kill, torture, and maim lots of animals and call it "research"
6. This research would produce no useable results, yet it would still be published in peer-reviewed journals
7. The faux-scientist would maintain his tenure and funding and continue abusing animals indefinitely
But this situation is so unlikely that I don't understand why it should be considered "neutral".
I think the request should be twofold.
First, my initial question was whether we are trying to represent all views, even when they contradict data, OR are we trying to actually supply facts and figures that are useful to both sides?
Second, I think we should have some more perspectives on what it means to be neutral in this situation. Is it neutral to say that animal testing has the intention of advancing knowledge/gathering data/pursuing science? I understand that there is a debate about whether or not animal testing is ethical. But I don't think an actual debate exists over WHY people do animal testing, except maybe in an extreme minority. This point specifically is what I'm most interested in hearing feedback about. -"69.205.169.113"
I am aware of the editorial policies. Using words in a way that's consistent with their dictionary definition IS a NPOV, is NOT original research, and IS verifiable.
It is not fair for you to presume that you know the intentions of scientists better than the scientists themselves. It is not acceptable to suggest that the institution of science as a whole is useless, a conspiracy, or both. I understand the necessity of including minority and flat earth perspectives, but as the article stands these views dominate. The one paragraph I wrote with the useful outcomes of animal testing was deleted two or three times. That's not neutral. Enough is enough.
Also your comment about my lack of academic and professional experience was a personal attack, and it was incorrect. Since you brought it up, I will correct you, but please don't take this as an invitation to try to "out-qualify" me by bringing up your own experience. The first lab I worked in used animal models to study the cerebellum's role in learning and memory (this was later used to study Alzheimer's Disease). The lab I work in now uses animal models to study differential effects of alcohol on adolescents and adults.
I would have expected better from an admin. 69.205.174.23 18:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote the intro, largely using a UK government report as a source, which I've referenced as a couple of embedded links. I also removed the "expert" tag, because I don't know what would count as an expert in an area like this, so the tag didn't make much sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
To the anon IP: you asked for details of the famous experiment where monkeys were hanged upside down. It was conducted in the 70s by Harry Harlow and Stephen Suomi. They took six-week-old rhesus monkeys, and placed them upside down in vertical-shaped stainless steel containers for between 45 days and two years. The aim was to produce what they called a "well of despair" to cause depression in the monkeys. Photographs of the chambers are here. [3] [4] [5] They were fed through a grid at the bottom. When they emerged, they were psychotic, and never recovered. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article focuses heavily on abuses committed against animals in the name of research. Because the article is about animal testing, maybe it would be a good idea to include more types of research involving animals, abusive or otherwise. This could include genetic engineering, developmental and embryological research, psychological experiments, and so on. I feel that the section on these subjects should be expanded - right now, in the "Types of Experiment" section, only toxicology tests are included, though the article describes other types of testing in later sections. Those sections should be rearranged so that they aren't sandwiched between blocks of text all about abuse and how it can be prevented. They seem kind of disconnected from the "Types of Experiment" section.
The picture of the rabbit can stay, since it helps describe the Draize test, but I think the picture of the rat undergoing an LD50 test can be removed, since just looking at the picture doesn't tell much. I think it is mislabelled as a mouse as well. At the very least, it is in the wrong section.
We could then have a brief section that says that there is a lot of controversy and opposition to animal testing, with a link to another article like Cruelty to animals or Vivisection and experimentation debate. Then a lot of the abuses presently described in the Animal Testing article could be added to one of those articles. Is it really necessary to include PETA and BUAV's work in exposing Huntingdon Life Sciences and Convance in this article? It seems to me like it would better serve the reader to treat animal abuse in a general sense here, and then have the specific offenses described in one of the other related articles.
There is already a link in the Animal Testing article under the Controversy heading that refers readers to the Vivisection and experimentation debate page. It says that that is the main article, but there is quite a lot of information right under that link describing the controversy, as well as abuse. Abuse is closely tied to the controversy, so it is important to mention, but it would probably make things simpler if there was one centralized article with research-related abuse, rather than two of them. Gary 04:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed this again after someone re-added them. "Many, if not most, human diseases are caused by poor nutrition, smoking, {Alcohol abuse|drinking]], drug use and misuse, stress, and lack of exercise. Researching and taking action against these would be relatively cheap and effective."
This line is a dubious personal comment (hastily inserted to get a point across) without source and assumes like many other statements that most diseases are a result of a sedentary lifestyle. (meaning only the affluent western world) AIDS is the number one killer in most parts of the developing world (read a larger % of world population) followed by other diseases. But that is missing the point; there is no source and even if it were provided, it is a flimsy argument here. Research on these "other diseases" is already going on and it does in no way seems be like an opposition. Infact one cannot abandon research on serious diseases just to study alcohol abuses etc. whose effects are already well documented.
The issue is this: this argument confuses serious diseases with lifestyle problems. drugs/exercise/stress are all lifestyle related ones and everyone fully knows their effects and how to improve them i.e. stop drugs/cigarettes or improve diet/workouts etc.. AIDS/Cancer/Influenza are NOT simply lifestyle oriented ailments and no one knows how to cure a virus, yet. So please stop adding arguments for the sake of adding as it sounds childish. Idleguy 05:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've started trying to make this article more factual and more descriptive of what animal testing is, rather than just having a list of pro and con arguments. I've taken a lot of the information so far from BUAV, which relies on reports from the British government, so the information is sound, but it's very oriented to the UK at the moment. When I next do some research, I'll try to get similar information for the U.S. and Japan, which are the two big testers outside Europe.
I started a section describing the different kinds of tests that tend to be performed. So far I've only written the toxicology one. Other sections could include practising surgical and dental techniques, brain research, psychological testing, lung research. Or we could section these into pure research and applied research.
I also tried to tidy the writing a little in the cosmetics and alternatives sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two matters I think should be commented on:
(1) Should we represent all sides of the argument, including misused data, in the interest of neutrality? I mean things like:
"aspirin, for example, is a teratogen in animals, but not in humans"
Aspirin causes teratogenesis and death in animals at doses that are also toxic to human beings. The reason there isn't a body of literature on aspirin-based death and birth defects in humans is because we would have to take 50 or 60 tablets in one day to produce those kinds of effects. There is some data that shows birth defects in babies born to mothers who regularly consume a great deal of aspirin. The point is: this argument IS put forth by the opponents to animal testing, but this argument is NOT factually accurate. Do we leave things like that in this article or not?
(On a related note: thalidomide was never tested on pregnant animals, hence its inability to predict birth defects, and an animal model for Parkinson's Disease can be induced by a drug called MTPT--this in particular is so prevalent in the literature regarding learning and memory that it's a particularly egregious factual error to have in an encyclopedia.)
(2) I want to hear from new, neutral voices whether it is a biased "point of view" that scientists use animal models to try to learn things, or if that can be generally accepted as a true statement. Again, I understand that some people believe that scientists use animal models for no other purpose, with no other intention, than torturing animals, but I would like for people to comment on whether or not this is an extreme, fringe, minority view, or one that should be represented equally. 69.205.174.23 19:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they heard "eminent witnesses", but obviously not on the particular subject of aspirin. Their cited source for that argument was the BUAV, who in turn cite this study: Robertson, R.T et al, (1979). Teratology, 21:313-20
This is the abstract of that study:
Experimental Teratology
Aspirin: Teratogenic evaluation in the dog Richard T. Robertson, Henry L. Allen, Delwin L. Bokelman Department of Safety Assessment, Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research, West Point, Pennsylvania 19486
Abstract Beagle bitches were administered aspirin at either 100 or 400 mg/kg/day between Days 15 and 22 or Days 23 and 30 postmating, and corresponding control groups were dosed with vehicle during one of these same time periods. Maternotoxicity was evident in all dogs dosed with 400 mg/kg/day of aspirin, but no signs of toxicity were observed in dogs at the lower dosage level. An increase in the number of resorptions was observed when 400 mg/kg/day of aspirin was administered from Days 16 to 22 postmating. Teratogenicity, as evidenced by 50% malformation rate, was seen in fetuses from dams treated with 400 mg/kg/day on Days 23 to 30 postmating. Observed malformations included, but were not limited to cleft palate, micrognathia, anasarca, cardiovascular malformations, and tail anomalies. No evidence of embryotoxic or teratogenic effects was seen in fetuses from either 100 mg/kg/day dosage level group. Examination of fetuses from 12 untreated litters and 4 vehicle-control litters revealed a very low spontaneous malformation rate confined almost entirely to minor tail abnormalities. These data support use of the dog as an acceptable alternative species in teratogenic screening.
Emphasis mine.
Note that at the dosage of 400 mg/kg/day, a 50kg human being would be consuming 20,000 mg of aspirin per day. In the usual 325mg tablets, that's about 61 tablets--exactly what I told you earlier.
Check your facts, even if the BUAV is too lazy and obsessed with their agenda to bother.
I am asking you not to represent it as fact when even your source does not. See their citation regarding Parkinson's: 69 BUAV (p. 89). The MRC disagree (p. 221), as do the Parkinson's Disease Society of the UK (p. 251). Back
Gee whiz, once again the BUAV is pushing their agenda and ignoring science. THAT is why I don't want this brought up, NOT because of my personal opinions.
This is NOT a contested claim. I did not call a single one of the contributions significant. I did not state that those advancements would have been impossible by other means. I only stated--and this is a verifiable, nondisputable fact--that animal testing WAS used in each and everyone of those circumstances.
It is just as much a fact that animal testing was used in those circumstances as it is a fact that 100 million animals are killed every year.
I could just as easily suggest that those animals would be killed by predators in the wild, or kept as pets, or used to make carpets out of if they weren't used for animal testing! But the fact is that those animals WERE killed because of animal testing. Those treatments WERE the result of animal testing.
The only reason I brought up the REAL reason scientists use animals is because you had listed a bunch of peripheral arguments that have basically nothing to do with why scientists use animals. I really thought it would be obvious that the scientists who are doing the animal testing, and thus preferring animals to other models, would be the scientists who support animal testing, but if you want that spelled out than just spell it out instead of repeatedly deleting EVERY SINGLE THING I ADD TO THIS ARTICLE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOUR POV.
By the way, you didn't explain why you deleted the section in which I did explain, in numbers, with cited sources, which scientists and doctors support animal testing.
Fine, I'll relocate it when those sections are created.
This seems to misunderstand the different types of tests. Does anyone know what was used as as source? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've added a section on the different regulatory systems: so far, U.S., UK, Japan, and France. I'd like to find China too, though apparently they have little regulation.
I also think I may have gotten the numbers of animals used annually in the U.S. wrong. I took the figure 1,101,958 from here [19] and they're government figures, so they should be right, but on other U.S. govt websites, I've read that two million per year, or ten per cent, are used in toxicology tests, which suggests 20 million a year. It's possible that the numbers in the table should have some zeros added, but it doesn't say that anywhere, and anyway that still wouldn't give us 20 million. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
At what stage will the warning be removed? Who judges this page neutral or otherwise, and how?
It is established fact that the overwhelming majority of the biomedical research community, and neutral observers (see many recent UK reports, eg Royal Society 2002, House of Lords 2002, The Lancet 2004, Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2005) agree that animal research is scientifically valid.
Most of this dispute seems to contest the established scientific POV by use of biassed sources, largely single issue pressure groups (BUAV is most definitely not neutral, neither is the source for the rabbit "draize test" picture which I have just removed as it does not depict the Draize test). These sources are neither scientific nor representative of anything other than a small minority view (see MORI opinion research for in depth examination of UK public opinion, which is largely supportive of animal research).
Will this dispute drag on interminably and unproductively with endless edits and counter edits? Would it not be better to delete this page altogether and start afresh? 217.206.196.219 10:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Toxicology tests and drug testing make up about 15% of animal procedures in the UK and likely the rest of the world (you can get comprehensive stats from the UK Home Office [20]). So what about basic and applied research and drug development (although efficacy tests and metabolic studies, which are under presently under drug testing, are part of drug development), and breeding of GM animals?
Because it is incomplete, this section is skewed. It needs to be rearranged and added to.
Worse, the specific toxicology test section is largely unreferenced, inaccurate and misleading: it reads as though it has come straight from antivivisection propaganda. This section needs to be more factual, neutral and contain citations.
Non-neutral antivivisection organisations, particularly BUAV, are extensivley cited throughout this entry. To promote overall neutrality it would be a good idea to cite some of the more scientifically based organisations such as RDS [21], CMP [22], the Biomedical Research Education Trust [23] or the Royal Society [24]. One of the most recent, neutral and comprehensive sources on the whole issue of animals in medical research is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report [25] but it doesn't get cited at all. 82.6.117.213 12:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
An anon just added this: "According to the U.S. Foundation for Biomedical Research, "[a]nimal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health." [5] Since its inception in 1901, approximately 70% of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine have been awarded for medical advances that have depended on animal research. Examples which have changed the world include the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplantation (dogs) and work on poliovirus that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys).[6][7]"
I think this will need to be edited down; it's going to make the intro too long because we've yet to add a pro-testing paragraph. The first two paras are descriptive, and the last two were going to be pro-testing and anti-testing, one each. The inclusion of a second pro-testing para throws this off balance. I won't edit it just yet because I want to write the anti-testing one first, then check for length. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we have some neutral sources for these statements that have been languishing for quite sometime now?
"* Most animal testing is conducted for non-medical reason
and to a lesser extent this statement too which is a bit confusing...
"* The animal-testing industry is a multi-million dollar concern. Advocates of testing may argue that their interests are scientific, but they are just as often commercial."
Does it mean that there is an "animal testing industry"? A term that fetches around 232 hits on Google with the first one propping from Wikipedia (so padding up the count with its forks and mirrors). The rest are mostly from biased groups. It would certainly be interesting to know the turnover of this "industry". Drug research firms would be a more neutral term, but I'm afraid that some editors holding extreme POV would think otherwise.
I've tagged it as dubious and are likely to be removed unless the source is provided soon. Idleguy 07:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I decided this discussion is sterile and going nowhere. I make comments or requests for changes which are ignored or rubbished. So I have started editing to remove unsupported statements, claims and inaccuracies (eg Oxford University is NOT building a primate centre!) and add in more factual information. I have got as far as the toxicology section.
The abuse section needs a total rewrite, based as it is on BUAV's partial view of their own infiltration of Cambridge University. I will try to do this next.
If someone else can add to the types of test section (Idleguy? that would be great. At the moment it only covers about 15% of animal experimentation. If no-one wants to take this on, I will also try to tackle this in the next month or so. 82.6.117.213 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I've started working towards a description of the regulations that apply to the use of non-human primates. Hopefully Wikiversity will be started soon and this will become an organized Wikiversity research effort; Laboratory animals in biomedical research. -- JWSchmidt 00:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Abuse
Clip from undercover footage filmed in 1997 by PETA inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.Undercover investigations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have documented and filmed examples of animal abuse in laboratories, and of animals being used in questionable experiments.
PETA filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, punching puppies in the face, screaming at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples [43] (video). The film was subsequently shown as "It's a Dog's Life" on Channel 4 television in the UK in 1997, as a result of which Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was formed, an international campaign to close HLS. In the United States, HLS technicians were filmed screaming and laughing at monkeys, and appearing to dissect one that was still alive [44] (video).
BUAV filmed staff in Covance, Europe's largest primate-testing center based in Germany, making monkeys dance in time to blaring pop music, handling them roughly, and screaming at them [45] (video).
In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their brains exposed and no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five.
The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "Cambridge staff work 9-5pm, so animals who had just been brain damaged were left overnight without veterinary attention. Some were found to be dead in the morning, some were found to be in a worse condition. Yet there is an obligation of licence holders to keep suffering to a minimum. The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on." [46]
The Cambridge experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for pure- and applied-research purposes, in the interests of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first of all trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by cutting or sucking out parts of the macaque's brains, or by injecting toxins, after which the monkeys were re-tested to determine whether the damage had affected their skills. The macaques were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, both before and after the surgery, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours for the duration of the experiment, with intermittent respite. [47] [48] (video)
In 2003, according to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [49] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to the National Institutes of Health, PETA described one experiment: "On September 19, 2001, baboon B777's left eye was removed, and a stroke was induced. The next morning, it was noted that the animal could not sit up, that he was leaning over, and that he could not eat. That evening, the baboon was still slouched over and was offered food but couldn't chew. On September 21, 2001, the record shows that the baboon was 'awake, but no movement, can't eat (chew), vomited in the a.m.' With no further notation about consulting with a veterinarian, the record reads, 'At 1:30 p.m. the animal died in the cage.'" [50]
In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" [51] (pdf).
This is the version posted by 86 (note from JWS: I assume "86" was meant to be "82" = 82.6.117.213; the version posted 17:40, 26 November 2005) (BTW, you can see all this in history). It could do with some more references, but I think it is more balanced:
Infiltrations
Clip from undercover footage filmed in 1997 inside Huntingdon Life Sciences in the UK. The footage showed staff punching and screaming at beagles.Infiltrations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have alleged that animals are abused and used in questionable experiments in laboratories.
An infiltator filmed staff inside a British laboratory owned by Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), Europe's largest animal-testing facility, punching puppies in the face, screaming at them, and simulating sex acts while taking blood samples [43] (video). The film was subsequently shown as "It's a Dog's Life" on Channel 4 television in the UK in 1997, as a result of which Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was formed, an international campaign to close HLS. In the United States, HLS technicians were filmed screaming and laughing at monkeys, and appearing to dissect one that was still alive [44] (video).
After the UK incident the staff involved were dismissed and prosecuted and new management was brought in. It was one of only two infiltrations in the UK in which allegationms of major misconduct were upheld. The other occurred in 1990 when an elderly Professor was filmed working on under-anaesthetised animals.
In recent years BUAV have infiltrated the laboratory breeders Harlan UK, Cambridge University, and a contract research laboratory in Germany. On each occasion their allegations were thoroughly investigated and none were upheld [45] [46].
In 2003, according to CNN, a post-doctoral "whistleblowing" veterinarian at Columbia University approached the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee about experiments being carried out by an assistant professor of neurosurgery, E. Sander Connolly. [47] Connolly was allegedly causing an approximation of strokes in baboons by removing their left eyeballs and using the empty eye sockets to reach a critical blood vessel to their brains. A clamp was placed on this blood vessel until the stroke was induced, after which Connolly would attempt to treat the condition with an experimental drug. In a letter to PETA, neurologist Robert S. Hoffman stated that he regards such experiments to be a "blind alley," and that the baboons are "kept alive for either three or ten days after experiencing a major stroke and in a condition of profound disability. This is obviously as terrifying for animals as it is for humans unless one believes that animals are incapable of terror or other emotional distress" [48] (pdf).
I think the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report [26] may have said something on infiltrations, so I'll see if I can find it. 217.206.196.218 09:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"Infiltrations" vs "Undercover investigations"
I just spent a lot of time reading at the PETA and BUAV websites. I'm not sure that "infiltration" is the best word to use in describing what is done by PETA and BUAV. My search of their websites indicates that these group rarely use the term "infiltration". "Undercover investigation" seems to convey what is done and there is no reason Wikipedia cannot use the term that these groups seem to prefer to use to describe their own actions.
The title of this section is a mater of dispute ("Abuse" vs "Infiltrations"). It might be wise to have a longer section title reflecting expansion of this section to cover both the problems found by conventional inspections and the results of undercover investigations. I think everyone can agree that it is important to find, document and prevent animal abuse and problems in how animals are used for research. Here is a longer section title, probably too long, but descriptive: Violations of animal care regulations revealed by inspections and investigations.
It is my understanding that (at least in the United States) official inspectors routinely cite institutions for violations of animal care regulations. Wikipedia should describe the number and nature of these violations and what remedies follow the issue of these citations. I think all this information is available from the USDA. This description of violations of regulations would flow naturally into a description of results from un-official undercover investigations, but there could be a description of why PETA and BUAV do not think that conventional inspections are adequate. My view is that the description of these undercover investigations should not only be an account given by PETA or BUAV. If a legal case results from an undercover investigation, the results of that legal case need to be described. I also think Wikipedia needs to make an effort to determine if some "undercover investigations" by PETA and BUAV do not result in a legal finding of animal abuse first example I found.
Beyond documentation of violations of animal care regulations and clear cases of animal abuse, there is the more difficult issue of "questionable experiments". In the United States, all animal experiments have to be justified before they take place. This is not generally something that is decided by inspections or undercover investigations. An example that is mentioned at the Wikipedia BUAV article is use of the LD50 test and how its use was questioned in Britain. My suggestion is that "questionable experiments" be addressed in the Controversy section of the Animal testing article, maybe by pointing to specific examples like the LD50 test.
I am still working my way through the rest of the two versions of the Abuse/Infiltrations section. -- JWSchmidt 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The following paragraph was added by 82.6.117.213 and then removed by SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin's edit comment "deleting unsourced additions" might apply:
I think it is useful for Wikipedia to provide a short account of what actions are taken to correct problems after an investigation takes place and what the results of any legal cases were. Citations references that provide the details are needed. In my reading, I also saw a webpage that made the argument that there have been "two infiltrations in the UK in which allegations of major misconduct were upheld"; if that source can be found and cited, then it seems reasonable to include the second and third sentences from the paragraph (above) in the Animal testing article.
The following paragraph was added by 82.6.117.213 and then removed by SlimVirgin.
It seems reasonable to include mention of examples of undercover investigations that did not result in findings of animal abuse. I have a problem getting the URL provided as reference #46 to work for me. Maybe a functioning URL could be found or maybe that example could be replaced by this one. -- JWSchmidt 16:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Four paragraphs starting with "BUAV filmed staff in Covance...." were deleted by 82.6.117.213 without any reason that I can find.
The second half of the next paragraph was also deleted:
Are those paragraphs under dispute? -- JWSchmidt 16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
The big question is, who is going to resolve disputes and make changes, and how do we know that SlimVirgin will not simply revert to his/her favourite previous version? 82.6.117.213 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I just changed the bit in Numbers where SlimVirgin has referenced Nuffield Council on Bioethics as estimating the global numbers at between 50 and 100 million. I can't find anywhere that they say this. They give figures for USA, Europe and Japan only, as far as I can see. BUAV is the only source as far as I know that mentions 100 million. I would annotate my edits with explanations in history, but I can't see how to do that. 82.6.117.213 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)