![]() | 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'd like to know if anyone would consider adding a section on emotional pain or psychological damage (either intentionally induced or side effect) as a subtopic in this section?
I've removed this as it doesn't really seem to say anything:
The 1990 Assessment and Control of the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Laboratory Animals, to "aid communication between all those concerned with the use and welfare of laboratory animals", presents a detailed severity index metric for the operational assessing and controlling of pain and distress in laboratory animal procedures based on numerically assigned evaluations of the following considerations: consciousness, anesthesia, preparation, restraint, duration, tissue sensitivity, organ risk, mortality, pain, distress, deprivation, and frequency. Operational control of severity considerations include: management practices, psychosocial influences, disease, objective measurement and record keeping, training, procedure design practices, basic husbandry considerations, and planning for emergency and humane end-points for each procedure. [1]
SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Operational control of severity considerations include:
I suppose the data is densely packed, but nowhere else in the article do we present any actual details about what the "on the ground" criteria are concerning pain management in animal testing. I think it is important not to just wave our hands and talk in complete generalities. The source is there for anyone who wishes to expand on or better understand the listed considerations. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I combined some refs in the lead and removed some blue to make it look less frantic. I also combined two pargraphs, and put the sentence "the topic is controversial" (which I changed to highly controversial) at the beginning of those paragraphs. Previously it had been at the start of the third paragraph, which suggested that only that paragraph - the anti-paragraph -- contained the controversial points, whereas it's both the pro and the anti positions that are controversial. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is about animal testing, it is not about animal testing in vertebrates. Our coverage of animal testing in invertebrates needs to be expanded, if anything, due to the importance of this group of animals in current science. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, animal experimentation or "animal testing" as we dub it in this article is the use of animals in research. Insects are animals and they are used in research - hence they must be discussed in this article. The use of this inexact term "animal testing" as the title of this article is a constant problem, as noted many times above on this talk page, but since that is what we seem to be stuck with, that is what we have to work with. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just looking at toxicology testing alone, there are a wealth of sources on the use of invertebrates in animal testing.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)That is before you examine the importance of invertebrates in pure research, where flies and worms are by far the most important species. Is your argument for excluding invertebrates from this article that you think people don't usually consider flies as animals? Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You might also find these links interesting:
Couple these with almost one million Google Scholar hits for Drosophila and you have a very notable organism. As I said before, this article isn't about the controversy, it is about the subject. Flies and worms are vital to modern animal experimentation, we can't miss them out, and we probably need to talk about them more. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I have a friend who works on Drosophila, she got very upset and angry when I once "dissed" her organism. Once you've listened to the impassioned defense of "why flies tell us everything we need to know" for half an hour it tends to stick in the memory! :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Tim, can you provide a source for "impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects ..." The page you linked to doesn't show it. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
" Some people also claim that it is unnecessary for animals to be used as research subjects and that computer or other nonanimal models could be used instead. In some cases this is true, and scientists strive to use computer models and other nonanimal methods whenever possible; however, many of the interactions that occur between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment are too complex for even the most sophisticated of computers to model. At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research." - edit conflict, its page 1 and 2. The longer quote might be better, what do people think? Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd hate to choose between the two! Both are extremely authoritative, but since most of are readership are probably Americans, I'd be tempted to cater for parochialism. Especially since most people who have heard of the Royal Society will have probably have heard of the US-NAS, but possibly not the other way around? Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Since almost all of our readers won't know that the ILAR are part of the National Academies, I took Rockpocket's excellent suggestion and substituted the Royal Society report instead. It is just as authoritiative, and hopefully there won't be any confusion about authorship. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Tim, can you please answer the question about why you changed the quote? This is the kind of thing that poisons these pages and turns them needlessly into battlefields, so I would really like to pin it down. Do you honestly see no significant distinction between: "it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects," and "At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research"? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The previous quote was good, because it's the first time we've actually had anything explanatory in the lead. It cited the source as saying: "'[a]t present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research,' because interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment are too complex for even very sophisticated computers to model."
The current quote goes back to say nothing, and seems to have been changed only to make the source sound more respectable, rather than with the aim of giving the reader information. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about the notability of the groups we quote in the lead, I think WP:UNDUE should really apply here. Why are the opinions of the larger Animal welfare groups not cited. The US Humane society and the RSPCA are obvious examples. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at what the mainstream animal welfare groups say, their statements appear more balanced and less extreme than those of PETA and Americans For Medical Advancement. Describing the mainstream scientific view, while only describing the extremist animal welfare group position - and omitting the mainstream animal welfare groups statements - seems to be giving undue weight to a minority opinion. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried adding the RSPCA quote to show the range of opinion on this topic amongst the mainstream animal welfare groups. It seemed the less woolly of the two, and as this is certainly one of the most important of such groups, its nuanced position is very important. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The article, and the lead, should summarise not only opposition to animal testing, but the positions of each notable group of people involved in the issue. The opinions of the more extreme abolitionist groups such as PETA should certainly be discussed in the article, but they should not be given undue weight. Both the RSPCA and the US-HS have clear positions on the issue, and these are very large and important groups of people. To cite Americans For Medical Advancement, which appears to be a one-man organisation, and ignore the largest animal welfare groups in the world, is inconsistent with our policies. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed them, the very definition of fringe! Since both organisations have position papers and large areas of their website devoted to the issue, they obviously have a view on the matter. What would you summarise this as, SV, reading the material I linked to above? We should be able to summarise this in a sentence or two. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The views in the final sentence of the lead need to be attributed. How about:
Animal testing is a controversial issue. Scientific societies such as The Royal Society support animal testing, arguing that is has been valuable in the past and remains necessary for some areas of current research. Some animal welfare groups, such as the RSPCA and the US humane society, aim for the eventual removal of animal testing and try to ensure that research is as humane as possible. Other groups, such as PETA, call for an immediate end to such research, arguing variously that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation."
Comments? Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Animal testing is a controversial issue. Scientific societies such as The Royal Society support animal testing, arguing that is has been vital in almost every medical achivement in the 20th century and that it remains necessary for some areas of research. Some animal welfare groups, such as the US humane society, aim for the eventual removal of animal testing and work with scientists and governments to try to ensure that research is as humane as possible. Other groups, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, call for an immediate end to such research, arguing variously that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation."
What I am concerned about is that since the largest animal welfare group in the world has a clear position on animal testing, this should be at least mentioned in the lead. The focus on the views of the smaller and more extreme groups is indeed an issue I am concerned about. If you don't wish to add the mainstream animal welfare groups' positions to the lead, how do you suggest we can make the lead adhere to WP:UNDUE in this regard? Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"As do most scientists, The HSUS advocates an end to the use of animals in research and testing that is harmful to the animals. Accordingly, we strive to decrease and eventually eliminate harm to animals used for these purposes." HSUS Statement on Animals in Biomedical Research, Testing, and Education
"It is simply morally indefensible that in the 21st century some of the most advanced laboratories in the world are still pouring tens of millions of public money into the type of research that belongs in the dark ages. For example, there was a 107 per cent increase in cosmetic research on animals. We now as a society must insist that our politicians listen to the overwhelming voice of European citizens and act now to end the suffering." 2007 BUAV Statement
The US Congress, in 1985, held a series of hearings on animal research. In it, they heard testimony from veterinarians, doctors, scientists, and animal rights activists including Alex Pacheco. They wrote a summary of their findings on animal research into the law commonly called the Animal Welfare Act. They wrote
(1) the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals;
(2) methods of testing that do not use animals are being and continue to be developed which are faster, less expensive, and more accurate than traditional animal experiments for some purposes and further opportunities exist for the development of these methods of testing;
(3) measures which eliminate or minimize the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals can result in more productive use of Federal funds; and
(4) measures which help meet the public concern for laboratory animal care and treatment are important in assuring that research will continue to progress.
The principles outlined in these findings guide the law in the USA, as well as guiding the oversight of animal welfare in laboratory research. [2]
One moral basis for animal testing was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002: "the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes." [3] Some researchers also believe animals may suffer less during throughout the testing process than human beings would because they have a reduced capacity to remember and anticipate pain. [4] The House of Lords report further made the following statement about research experiments using animals "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge." [5]
The "controversy" section only constitutes about 25% of the article, but references to the controversy currently occupy 50% of the intro. Also, the intro doesn't really summarize the "Reasearch classification" section even though it is a major portion of the article. Cla68 ( talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I don't think I've ever edited the same content article that you were editing before, so I don't understand your accusation either. I think the use of such a label is unfortunate and counterproductive. If you think I'm "wikistalking" you (whatever that really means), I invite you to bring it up on the appropriate forum and we can exhaustively discuss each other's behavior and ethics. My attention was also drawn to this article because of the 3RR warning you gave Tim on his talk page and I've been watching it for some time. In the past I've also gotten involved in other controversial subjects, including Global Warming, Sea of Japan, and Gary Weiss. Anyway, back to my original thought...the intro as written doesn't presently match the article that follows below it. Cla68 ( talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Animal testing classifications include pure and applied research, Xenotransplantation, and toxicology, cosmetics, and drug testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research.
Cla68 ( talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems a very good suggestion, thank you, I've been bold and added this to the lead. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think SlimVirgin objected to it below, saying: Also, to put a paragraph in the lead about pure v applied research when we were debating the point of those sections is odd. However, I don't know what sections she was referring to. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How about replacing all the external links with:
Comments? Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask again that we stop using primary sources so much? What's happening is that people are saying "primates are used to study visual disorder," and are linking to one paper in which they were so used. But if we were to link to every paper about studies that had used a non-human primate, we would need to open our own wiki. Therefore, it's better to use secondary sources who give an overview, discussing how they're used, how many, mostly in what areas etc. Otherwise, we're effectively engaged in OR, randomly picking research papers to satisfy the sourcing requirements, without really looking to see if what they say is directly relevant. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A Request for Mediation on this article has been opened here. Cla68 ( talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, the problem with this article is that, if someone who knew nothing about animal testing were to read it, they wouldn't know much more once they'd finished, because most of it is waffle. What can we do about that? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The pain section needs help. I suggest:
Operational control of severity considerations include:
I suppose the data is densely packed, but nowhere else in the article do we present any actual details about what the "on the ground" criteria are concerning pain management in animal testing. I think it is important not to just wave our hands and talk in complete generalities. The source is there for anyone who wishes to expand on or better understand the listed considerations. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in mainstream press sources, this might be useful. Rockpocke t 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you having problems with that social behaviour article Rockpocket. PubMed IDs formatted as PMID 1234 are automatically made into a link, for articles that aren't in PubMed you can use their digital object identifier (in this case DOI=10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00363.x) and put this into [10] to get a permanent link. Hope this helps Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There seemed to be some kind of hidden character in the title that messed with the format, once I deleted all the spaces and then replaced them it worked fine. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be being a bit dim, but where is the section covering the arguments for and against animal testing other than the lead? I'd also like to point out that the section on "Pain and suffering" is a mess - the pointers to dualism and Descartes are bizarre at the very least, and a large part of it is dedicated to the views of one Larry Carbone for no obvious reason. -- Coroebus 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)These are not an improvement. The "ethics and usefulness" section isn't well written and basically consists of a list, whereas we had just managed to get rid of the list-like quality of some sections. We need material that people will read.
Coroebus, the idea that people underestimating pain deliberately doesn't belong in the pain section is obviously strange. We can't have POV-forks sections where everything bad is lumped together.
Also, to put a paragraph in the lead about pure v applied research when we were debating the point of those sections is odd.
Finally, the "allegations of abuse" section header is POV because it is only researchers who would regard this as abuse, as opposed to use. Those opposed to testing see these incidents as inevitable. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first part of the ethics section to remove the "list" format. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Do you not understand the concept of "usefulness" in general, or just in this specific instance? Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a point: if there's a choice between having a list and reducing a subjective 'readability', and replacing a list and reducing encyclopaedic usefulness, I would hope we would go with the list. Relata refero ( talk) 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked each of the reference/further reading links - many no longer worked, two led to search engine results. NOTE: I did not note if removing these links affected the balance of views in the references. Below are removed links w/reasons:
Hi there, I noticed "Covino, Joseph, Jr. Lab Animal Abuse: Vivisection Exposed!, Epic Press, 1990" was published by the vanity publisher Epic Press and is therefore not a reliable source. I removed this reference. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I also removed "Diaries of despair", xenodiaries.org, Uncaged Campaigns, retrieved June 18, 2006. since this was a redundant reference and did not appear to be a mainstream media website. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Lantern Books are respected mainstream publishers. I asked about this at the WP:RS noticeboard and they recommended that an unbiased mainstream media source would be preferable. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The section in "Ethics" on The focus of public debate on this issue is also questioned, with over 10 times more animals are used by humans for other purposes... needs a source that makes this claim, at present this is original research. Most of the links were also broken or not relevant. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I also removed a link to the Animal Liberation Front website. Since this organisation has been described by two governments as a terrorist organization, I don't think we should link to their site as a source for the article. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, as concerns about sourcing were one of the major points raised in the request for mediation, I am trying to improve the article by removing unreliable sources. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Newkirk's book is still in the article, but an additional mainstream source would be preferable. I notice you have replaced xenodiaries.org I did not think this website was a "respected mainstream publication", but I may be wrong - who are the authors of this material and what is their editorial process? Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This inclusion of this reference is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lantern_books. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Ethics and Validity sections is that they don't really say much. For example:
Proponents of animal research argue that drugs and vaccines produced through animal testing are vital to modern medicine, that there have been several examples of substances causing death or injury to human beings because of inadequate animal testing, and that there are no known alternatives to many kinds of animal testing. They claim that anti-vivisection activists manipulate and fabricate facts so that their claims are not reliable.
This level of generality isn't exactly educative. We should be writing the article so that people know more after reading it than they did before. We seem to be swinging between writing that's too dense and too specific to writing that's almost devoid of content. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A good general review of this area is in "A companion to ethics.", (Blackwell) edited by Peter Singer. The chapter on "Animals" by Lori Gruen discusses the various positions. I'll read this again over the next few days. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the difficulty raised above that this article only talks in general terms about animal experiments. What would people think about putting one detailed example in, showing an application in a bit more experimental detail? I could write a 1 - 2 paragraph summary of PMID 17170305 if people were interested, possibly with a figure showing a virulence assay? Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It used a genetic cross carried out by feeding two strains (virulent and avirulent) of Toxoplasma to a cat, isolating cysts from its faeces, and then examined the virulence of the progeny in mice. This allowed the identification of a previously-unknown virulence factor. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately toxo isn't an animal, it's a protozoa - certainly a eukaryote, but not part of animalia. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask for a source for this rather strange statement? A good one would be a policy maker stating that "Death does not harm animals." - although I doubt if you will ever find somebody saying this. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see from reading the source I just added that you are quite right, but that this relates to the legal, rather than common-sense, definition of "harm". What do you think of the new formulation? I think readers would have been severely confused by reading that death doesn't harm something, so this might be a bit clearer. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote the source you provided "These methods must cause immediate loss of consciousness through physical trauma to the brain." - p 298 Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 1 - please do not accuse me of original research when you have simply not read the sources you choose to cite. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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'd like to know if anyone would consider adding a section on emotional pain or psychological damage (either intentionally induced or side effect) as a subtopic in this section?
I've removed this as it doesn't really seem to say anything:
The 1990 Assessment and Control of the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Laboratory Animals, to "aid communication between all those concerned with the use and welfare of laboratory animals", presents a detailed severity index metric for the operational assessing and controlling of pain and distress in laboratory animal procedures based on numerically assigned evaluations of the following considerations: consciousness, anesthesia, preparation, restraint, duration, tissue sensitivity, organ risk, mortality, pain, distress, deprivation, and frequency. Operational control of severity considerations include: management practices, psychosocial influences, disease, objective measurement and record keeping, training, procedure design practices, basic husbandry considerations, and planning for emergency and humane end-points for each procedure. [1]
SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Operational control of severity considerations include:
I suppose the data is densely packed, but nowhere else in the article do we present any actual details about what the "on the ground" criteria are concerning pain management in animal testing. I think it is important not to just wave our hands and talk in complete generalities. The source is there for anyone who wishes to expand on or better understand the listed considerations. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I combined some refs in the lead and removed some blue to make it look less frantic. I also combined two pargraphs, and put the sentence "the topic is controversial" (which I changed to highly controversial) at the beginning of those paragraphs. Previously it had been at the start of the third paragraph, which suggested that only that paragraph - the anti-paragraph -- contained the controversial points, whereas it's both the pro and the anti positions that are controversial. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is about animal testing, it is not about animal testing in vertebrates. Our coverage of animal testing in invertebrates needs to be expanded, if anything, due to the importance of this group of animals in current science. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, animal experimentation or "animal testing" as we dub it in this article is the use of animals in research. Insects are animals and they are used in research - hence they must be discussed in this article. The use of this inexact term "animal testing" as the title of this article is a constant problem, as noted many times above on this talk page, but since that is what we seem to be stuck with, that is what we have to work with. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just looking at toxicology testing alone, there are a wealth of sources on the use of invertebrates in animal testing.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)That is before you examine the importance of invertebrates in pure research, where flies and worms are by far the most important species. Is your argument for excluding invertebrates from this article that you think people don't usually consider flies as animals? Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You might also find these links interesting:
Couple these with almost one million Google Scholar hits for Drosophila and you have a very notable organism. As I said before, this article isn't about the controversy, it is about the subject. Flies and worms are vital to modern animal experimentation, we can't miss them out, and we probably need to talk about them more. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I have a friend who works on Drosophila, she got very upset and angry when I once "dissed" her organism. Once you've listened to the impassioned defense of "why flies tell us everything we need to know" for half an hour it tends to stick in the memory! :) Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Tim, can you provide a source for "impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects ..." The page you linked to doesn't show it. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
" Some people also claim that it is unnecessary for animals to be used as research subjects and that computer or other nonanimal models could be used instead. In some cases this is true, and scientists strive to use computer models and other nonanimal methods whenever possible; however, many of the interactions that occur between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment are too complex for even the most sophisticated of computers to model. At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research." - edit conflict, its page 1 and 2. The longer quote might be better, what do people think? Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd hate to choose between the two! Both are extremely authoritative, but since most of are readership are probably Americans, I'd be tempted to cater for parochialism. Especially since most people who have heard of the Royal Society will have probably have heard of the US-NAS, but possibly not the other way around? Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Since almost all of our readers won't know that the ILAR are part of the National Academies, I took Rockpocket's excellent suggestion and substituted the Royal Society report instead. It is just as authoritiative, and hopefully there won't be any confusion about authorship. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Tim, can you please answer the question about why you changed the quote? This is the kind of thing that poisons these pages and turns them needlessly into battlefields, so I would really like to pin it down. Do you honestly see no significant distinction between: "it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects," and "At present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research"? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The previous quote was good, because it's the first time we've actually had anything explanatory in the lead. It cited the source as saying: "'[a]t present, it is impossible to advance biomedical science without the use of animal subjects for some aspects of research,' because interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment are too complex for even very sophisticated computers to model."
The current quote goes back to say nothing, and seems to have been changed only to make the source sound more respectable, rather than with the aim of giving the reader information. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about the notability of the groups we quote in the lead, I think WP:UNDUE should really apply here. Why are the opinions of the larger Animal welfare groups not cited. The US Humane society and the RSPCA are obvious examples. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at what the mainstream animal welfare groups say, their statements appear more balanced and less extreme than those of PETA and Americans For Medical Advancement. Describing the mainstream scientific view, while only describing the extremist animal welfare group position - and omitting the mainstream animal welfare groups statements - seems to be giving undue weight to a minority opinion. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried adding the RSPCA quote to show the range of opinion on this topic amongst the mainstream animal welfare groups. It seemed the less woolly of the two, and as this is certainly one of the most important of such groups, its nuanced position is very important. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The article, and the lead, should summarise not only opposition to animal testing, but the positions of each notable group of people involved in the issue. The opinions of the more extreme abolitionist groups such as PETA should certainly be discussed in the article, but they should not be given undue weight. Both the RSPCA and the US-HS have clear positions on the issue, and these are very large and important groups of people. To cite Americans For Medical Advancement, which appears to be a one-man organisation, and ignore the largest animal welfare groups in the world, is inconsistent with our policies. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed them, the very definition of fringe! Since both organisations have position papers and large areas of their website devoted to the issue, they obviously have a view on the matter. What would you summarise this as, SV, reading the material I linked to above? We should be able to summarise this in a sentence or two. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The views in the final sentence of the lead need to be attributed. How about:
Animal testing is a controversial issue. Scientific societies such as The Royal Society support animal testing, arguing that is has been valuable in the past and remains necessary for some areas of current research. Some animal welfare groups, such as the RSPCA and the US humane society, aim for the eventual removal of animal testing and try to ensure that research is as humane as possible. Other groups, such as PETA, call for an immediate end to such research, arguing variously that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation."
Comments? Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Animal testing is a controversial issue. Scientific societies such as The Royal Society support animal testing, arguing that is has been vital in almost every medical achivement in the 20th century and that it remains necessary for some areas of research. Some animal welfare groups, such as the US humane society, aim for the eventual removal of animal testing and work with scientists and governments to try to ensure that research is as humane as possible. Other groups, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, call for an immediate end to such research, arguing variously that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, never reliably predictive of human metabolic and physiological specificities, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the alleged benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation."
What I am concerned about is that since the largest animal welfare group in the world has a clear position on animal testing, this should be at least mentioned in the lead. The focus on the views of the smaller and more extreme groups is indeed an issue I am concerned about. If you don't wish to add the mainstream animal welfare groups' positions to the lead, how do you suggest we can make the lead adhere to WP:UNDUE in this regard? Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"As do most scientists, The HSUS advocates an end to the use of animals in research and testing that is harmful to the animals. Accordingly, we strive to decrease and eventually eliminate harm to animals used for these purposes." HSUS Statement on Animals in Biomedical Research, Testing, and Education
"It is simply morally indefensible that in the 21st century some of the most advanced laboratories in the world are still pouring tens of millions of public money into the type of research that belongs in the dark ages. For example, there was a 107 per cent increase in cosmetic research on animals. We now as a society must insist that our politicians listen to the overwhelming voice of European citizens and act now to end the suffering." 2007 BUAV Statement
The US Congress, in 1985, held a series of hearings on animal research. In it, they heard testimony from veterinarians, doctors, scientists, and animal rights activists including Alex Pacheco. They wrote a summary of their findings on animal research into the law commonly called the Animal Welfare Act. They wrote
(1) the use of animals is instrumental in certain research and education for advancing knowledge of cures and treatment for diseases and injuries which afflict both humans and animals;
(2) methods of testing that do not use animals are being and continue to be developed which are faster, less expensive, and more accurate than traditional animal experiments for some purposes and further opportunities exist for the development of these methods of testing;
(3) measures which eliminate or minimize the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals can result in more productive use of Federal funds; and
(4) measures which help meet the public concern for laboratory animal care and treatment are important in assuring that research will continue to progress.
The principles outlined in these findings guide the law in the USA, as well as guiding the oversight of animal welfare in laboratory research. [2]
One moral basis for animal testing was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002: "the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes." [3] Some researchers also believe animals may suffer less during throughout the testing process than human beings would because they have a reduced capacity to remember and anticipate pain. [4] The House of Lords report further made the following statement about research experiments using animals "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge." [5]
The "controversy" section only constitutes about 25% of the article, but references to the controversy currently occupy 50% of the intro. Also, the intro doesn't really summarize the "Reasearch classification" section even though it is a major portion of the article. Cla68 ( talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I don't think I've ever edited the same content article that you were editing before, so I don't understand your accusation either. I think the use of such a label is unfortunate and counterproductive. If you think I'm "wikistalking" you (whatever that really means), I invite you to bring it up on the appropriate forum and we can exhaustively discuss each other's behavior and ethics. My attention was also drawn to this article because of the 3RR warning you gave Tim on his talk page and I've been watching it for some time. In the past I've also gotten involved in other controversial subjects, including Global Warming, Sea of Japan, and Gary Weiss. Anyway, back to my original thought...the intro as written doesn't presently match the article that follows below it. Cla68 ( talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Animal testing classifications include pure and applied research, Xenotransplantation, and toxicology, cosmetics, and drug testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research.
Cla68 ( talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems a very good suggestion, thank you, I've been bold and added this to the lead. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think SlimVirgin objected to it below, saying: Also, to put a paragraph in the lead about pure v applied research when we were debating the point of those sections is odd. However, I don't know what sections she was referring to. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How about replacing all the external links with:
Comments? Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask again that we stop using primary sources so much? What's happening is that people are saying "primates are used to study visual disorder," and are linking to one paper in which they were so used. But if we were to link to every paper about studies that had used a non-human primate, we would need to open our own wiki. Therefore, it's better to use secondary sources who give an overview, discussing how they're used, how many, mostly in what areas etc. Otherwise, we're effectively engaged in OR, randomly picking research papers to satisfy the sourcing requirements, without really looking to see if what they say is directly relevant. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
A Request for Mediation on this article has been opened here. Cla68 ( talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, the problem with this article is that, if someone who knew nothing about animal testing were to read it, they wouldn't know much more once they'd finished, because most of it is waffle. What can we do about that? SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The pain section needs help. I suggest:
Operational control of severity considerations include:
I suppose the data is densely packed, but nowhere else in the article do we present any actual details about what the "on the ground" criteria are concerning pain management in animal testing. I think it is important not to just wave our hands and talk in complete generalities. The source is there for anyone who wishes to expand on or better understand the listed considerations. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 17:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in mainstream press sources, this might be useful. Rockpocke t 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you having problems with that social behaviour article Rockpocket. PubMed IDs formatted as PMID 1234 are automatically made into a link, for articles that aren't in PubMed you can use their digital object identifier (in this case DOI=10.1111/j.1740-0929.2006.00363.x) and put this into [10] to get a permanent link. Hope this helps Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There seemed to be some kind of hidden character in the title that messed with the format, once I deleted all the spaces and then replaced them it worked fine. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be being a bit dim, but where is the section covering the arguments for and against animal testing other than the lead? I'd also like to point out that the section on "Pain and suffering" is a mess - the pointers to dualism and Descartes are bizarre at the very least, and a large part of it is dedicated to the views of one Larry Carbone for no obvious reason. -- Coroebus 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)These are not an improvement. The "ethics and usefulness" section isn't well written and basically consists of a list, whereas we had just managed to get rid of the list-like quality of some sections. We need material that people will read.
Coroebus, the idea that people underestimating pain deliberately doesn't belong in the pain section is obviously strange. We can't have POV-forks sections where everything bad is lumped together.
Also, to put a paragraph in the lead about pure v applied research when we were debating the point of those sections is odd.
Finally, the "allegations of abuse" section header is POV because it is only researchers who would regard this as abuse, as opposed to use. Those opposed to testing see these incidents as inevitable. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first part of the ethics section to remove the "list" format. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Do you not understand the concept of "usefulness" in general, or just in this specific instance? Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a point: if there's a choice between having a list and reducing a subjective 'readability', and replacing a list and reducing encyclopaedic usefulness, I would hope we would go with the list. Relata refero ( talk) 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I checked each of the reference/further reading links - many no longer worked, two led to search engine results. NOTE: I did not note if removing these links affected the balance of views in the references. Below are removed links w/reasons:
Hi there, I noticed "Covino, Joseph, Jr. Lab Animal Abuse: Vivisection Exposed!, Epic Press, 1990" was published by the vanity publisher Epic Press and is therefore not a reliable source. I removed this reference. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I also removed "Diaries of despair", xenodiaries.org, Uncaged Campaigns, retrieved June 18, 2006. since this was a redundant reference and did not appear to be a mainstream media website. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Lantern Books are respected mainstream publishers. I asked about this at the WP:RS noticeboard and they recommended that an unbiased mainstream media source would be preferable. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The section in "Ethics" on The focus of public debate on this issue is also questioned, with over 10 times more animals are used by humans for other purposes... needs a source that makes this claim, at present this is original research. Most of the links were also broken or not relevant. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I also removed a link to the Animal Liberation Front website. Since this organisation has been described by two governments as a terrorist organization, I don't think we should link to their site as a source for the article. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, as concerns about sourcing were one of the major points raised in the request for mediation, I am trying to improve the article by removing unreliable sources. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Newkirk's book is still in the article, but an additional mainstream source would be preferable. I notice you have replaced xenodiaries.org I did not think this website was a "respected mainstream publication", but I may be wrong - who are the authors of this material and what is their editorial process? Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This inclusion of this reference is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lantern_books. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the Ethics and Validity sections is that they don't really say much. For example:
Proponents of animal research argue that drugs and vaccines produced through animal testing are vital to modern medicine, that there have been several examples of substances causing death or injury to human beings because of inadequate animal testing, and that there are no known alternatives to many kinds of animal testing. They claim that anti-vivisection activists manipulate and fabricate facts so that their claims are not reliable.
This level of generality isn't exactly educative. We should be writing the article so that people know more after reading it than they did before. We seem to be swinging between writing that's too dense and too specific to writing that's almost devoid of content. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A good general review of this area is in "A companion to ethics.", (Blackwell) edited by Peter Singer. The chapter on "Animals" by Lori Gruen discusses the various positions. I'll read this again over the next few days. Tim Vickers ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the difficulty raised above that this article only talks in general terms about animal experiments. What would people think about putting one detailed example in, showing an application in a bit more experimental detail? I could write a 1 - 2 paragraph summary of PMID 17170305 if people were interested, possibly with a figure showing a virulence assay? Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It used a genetic cross carried out by feeding two strains (virulent and avirulent) of Toxoplasma to a cat, isolating cysts from its faeces, and then examined the virulence of the progeny in mice. This allowed the identification of a previously-unknown virulence factor. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately toxo isn't an animal, it's a protozoa - certainly a eukaryote, but not part of animalia. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask for a source for this rather strange statement? A good one would be a policy maker stating that "Death does not harm animals." - although I doubt if you will ever find somebody saying this. Tim Vickers ( talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see from reading the source I just added that you are quite right, but that this relates to the legal, rather than common-sense, definition of "harm". What do you think of the new formulation? I think readers would have been severely confused by reading that death doesn't harm something, so this might be a bit clearer. Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote the source you provided "These methods must cause immediate loss of consciousness through physical trauma to the brain." - p 298 Recommendations for euthanasia of experimental animals: Part 1 - please do not accuse me of original research when you have simply not read the sources you choose to cite. Tim Vickers ( talk) 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)