Talk:Animal testing/Archive 7

message: Sorry, I know this doesn't contribute, but I'm really impressed that this controversial topic has such a well written and well sourced article!! Brilliant! 81.179.113.235 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article 

message: Request permission for the following:
1) Caption to Enos pic - maintain correct grammar around "insertion"
2) Replace "non-human animal" with "animal" (Understood.  See Animal)
3) Replace "purpose bred" with "bred specifically for research purposes" (purpose bred is jargon)
4) Replace "Opponents of animal testing strongly oppose" with "Opponents of animal testing want to reduce or abolish the practice" (please look carefully at how uninformative and redundant the first sentence is.  If you have a better idea, let's hear it but no more reverts.)
5) Change "that it is bad science" to "scientifically unnecessary". (for word economy and because "bad science" is jargon)
6) Clean up paragraph about FBR, and remove awkward brackets "[a]nimal".  The statement is sourced and correct.  The encyclopedia is full of factual statements and footnotes are usually sufficient. Haber 02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: 5. They don't only say it's unnecessary. They also say it is bad science. Separate points. Re: 6. [a]nimal isn't awkward; it is standard and you shouldn't change quotes. The paragraph doesn't need clean up. It needs to be fully attributed to FBR, or whatever the source is, and you keep removing the attribution. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you ok with 1-4? Haber 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering what 1 means, but I'm fine with it in principle. Go ahead and make the change. 2, I'd prefer non-human, but  I'll go along with animal. 3, I prefer the shorter phrase, but again I'll go along with the longer one. 4, I prefer to keep "strongly oppose," and I know of no opponents who merely want to reduce. They strongly oppose the practise, they strongly oppose any of the arguments in favor of the practise, and they want to see it abolished entirely, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Haber's point is that it is redundant to say that "opponents strongly oppose". Nrets 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good point. Sorry, I missed that; it was a remnant of "opponents strongly contest these views," until we removed the views. I've fixed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 looks good, though I can't resist noting that not all opponents want animal research abolished entirely.  Peter Singer is an example. Haber 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the proposed changes, especially 4. As far as 5 goes, how about saying "poor scientific practice" as opposed to "bad science" which, I agree, is jargon. Although the argument never did make sense to me, since they claim animal models are too different from humans to be useful, but then propose alternatives like cultured cell lines and computer models. Nrets 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim animals aren't similar enough to us to have our moral rights, but somehow are similar enough to use in experiments. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except I don't think our moral rights are a product of our genes... Nrets 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a sense you do. The beings with human genes are allowed to have moral rights, in your view. Others not. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not entirely true, as mice with human transgenes don't suddenly obtain an elevated moral status ;) Rockpocket 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only because they haven't yet been liberated. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro proposals 

message: Your edit on animal testing included a mention of inserting electrodes into the brain for studies of vision. This is referenced (in Next of Kin) as a technique sampled from the entire world of visual studies, and not from the UK. The paragraph, and referral in the text, discuss primate experiments in the UK. Please add a reference to the use of inserted electrodes for UK studies of vision, auditory, and cognitive studies, or redact the referral to "inserting electrodes into the brain", which clearly did not come from the same reference already listed. Or, if it is there and I missed it, please add a page number. --Animalresearcher 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you know that electrodes (i.e. single unit recording) are widely used for neuroscientific research, especially in vision (e.g. here) so I am just clarifying what sort of things are meant by neuroscientific research into vision, cognition etc...  It may not be covered by the reference, but then no one else is disputing that this is what it entails.  I also wanted to mention optical imaging but couldn't quite figure out how to phrase it - if you think that other practices are more representative then add them in too - don't be disingenuous by insisting on a reference for something you should know is the case if you are, as you claim, familiar with what goes on in animal research. --Coroebus 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: here's some more electrodes stimulating and recording in the UK.  I don't want to add in references since it would clog up the article and doesn't need citations unless someone awkward comes along to dispute it. --Coroebus 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first reference comes from the National Eye Institute, in Bethesda, MD. The second comes from studies of Parkinson's, in which chemical lesions are followed by deep brain stimulation. But there are still not references for insertion of electrodes into the brain for studies of visual, auditory, or cognitive studies. The electrode usage in Parkinson's studies is identical to the human surgical preparation applied in thousands of humans yearly. The MPTP model was developed because humans mistakenly took MPTP (they thought it was ecstasy). But both the chemical lesion and the treatment in Asiz's study directly follow human voluntary efforts. The visual study was simply not conducted in the UK. --Animalresearcher 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, if you actually read the second study, you will find it was conducted in the UK ("Animals and training. For monkeys Hg and Rb, all procedures were performed in accordance with the United Kingdom Home Office regulations on animal experimentation" - look at the authors!), the other study is indeed in a Parkinsonian model, what is your point?  It establishes that electrode studies are indeed carried out in the UK (in this case in Parkinson's research, which is one of the area the sentence "This includes neuroscientific study of the visual and auditory systems, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's [62], involving techniques such as recording from electrodes inserted into the brain or temporary or permanent damage to areas of tissue." refers to (although I just talk about recording in that, just thought a stimulating one would show the variety of electrode studies).  I don't understand your irrelevant waffle about how electrode preps in humans and monkeys are similar, like I give a friggin rat's arse, what do you think I am, some starry eyed ALF activist?  I'm in favour of animal research, I'm just opposed to your clumsy revisionism. --Coroebus 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The recording occurs from microelectrodes, and not electrodes inserted into the brain. The deep brain stimulation uses electrodes.  This terminology is consistent with your references, but not consistent with the unattributed text you added. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear god.  Please tell me you know that a microelectrode is a type of electrode! --Coroebus 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See table 9 of last year's figures here, 100 monkeys had interference with the brain.  A not insignificant number. --Coroebus 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand. I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced. And still is. It should not be hard for you to understand the need to back up edits you add to Wikipedia with verifiable references. --Animalresearcher 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I regard that as tendentious - I do not think a citation is necessary, I have already established that the statement is true, if you think a citation is necessary then feel free to add one or all of the references I have provided. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure why you feel like adding edits to wikipedia for content in a highly controversial article do not require citation from you. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE#Tagging_unsourced_material says "To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material: If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the  tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." but you say above "I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced" i.e. you want citations purely for citations sake, not because the material is "doubtful".  i.e. you are tendentiously editing and trying to prove some kind of WP:POINT.  I would add citations in if I thought anyone realistically disagreed that electrode recordings and lesion studies are carried out in neuroscience studies of vision, cognition or disease models.  The only objection has been yours, which isn't an objection to the veracity at all.  If you absolutely must have citations for every sentence in the article, put them in yourself, there are plenty, and I've provided you with some.  Your edits to the article as a whole annoy me because it looks like you are trying to downplay what you regard as less palatable aspects of animal research, in order to win some kind of propaganda war over animal research - whereas I am here to accurately report what happens in animal research, to allow people to make up their own minds.  This just seems like one more example of that, particularly when I see you saying things like "Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function, so I changed the order of the statements to remove this potential ambiguity. SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true). Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's)." which I have demonstrated to be false (and I only know and have visited some of the labs). --Coroebus 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true)." Just to clarify: I don't believe these studies require it, simply that it has been done. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I disagree. Microelectrodes are inserted into the brain to record, not electrodes. There is at least a ten-fold difference in size, which speaks directly to the controversial issue of potential pain and suffering. A microelectrodes is typically 0.1 mm at its widest, electrodes 1 mm wide or wider. And the reference still associates UK auditory primate studies with insertion of electrodes or brain damage, neither of which is true because there are not any UK auditory primate studies. So, yes, I am questioning the validity of your edit on multiple grounds. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, while we are at it, if you could find ANY SINGLE REFERENCE on either brain lesions or microelectrode studies of the auditory system in primates in the UK I would appreciate it. I feel there MUST be an auditory primate physiology community in the UK, but I cannot put my finger on it. --Animalresearcher 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not my field, the auditory groups I know use other species (e.g. ferrets), in fact I'm not familiar with any auditory work in primates.  The next of kin 'report' cites a review by Andy King on research that wasn't actually carried out in the UK so they may just be confused. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  King uses ferrets currently. There is also auditory guinea pig and rodent work. But not primates. Since there are not auditory studies that use primates in the UK, perhaps that should be removed. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection from me, like I say, looks like they mistook his review for the original study. --Coroebus 13:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted it back to the version before you altered it. If you want to mention methods I have no objection as long as it is cited and verifiable. As I already pointed out, the lack of primate auditory studies in the UK already casts doubt on the validity of the Next of Kin report as a source. This highlights the issue. The edits need to be verifiably referenced. I do not think you will have any problem finding citations for the use of microelectrodes in visual or cognitive studies, or brain damage being induced for studies of Parkinson's (this one is actually already in the Next of Kin report). But please do not introduce something because you think it is true without a verifiable reference. --Animalresearcher 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing I don't understand about AR's edits is that they suggest AR doesn't support animal testing himself. He can only support a diluted, whitewashed version, where is no pain, the legislation is wonderful, the animals are happy, and much of the research is done to benefit the animals themselves. Surely, if you truly support something, you support the thing unadorned. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Coroebus talk page

message: The following textThis includes studying visual and auditory functions, cognitive research, and chemically inducing brain damage in order to research Parkinson's. [62]
was altered to this
This includes neuroscientific study of the visual and auditory systems, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's [62], involving techniques such as recording from electrodes inserted into the brain or temporary or permanent damage to areas of tissue.
I added a fact tag, because reference number 62 did not support the use of recording electrodes being inserted into the brain in UK primate studies. Instead, it made a broad assessment of studies worldwide and techniques used in visual, auditory, or cognitive studies. I therefore viewed the edit as requiring citation. Coroebus deleted the fact tag without supplying a citation in the article. I reverted the sentence to the version consistent with reference [62]. Coroebus un-reverted it. In discussion on Coroebus' talk page, he supported the use of electrodes with personal knowledge, and even a Pubmed citation, but refused to  add such a citation to the article. I further pointed out that there are in fact not primates in use in the UK in auditory studies (but there are in visual and cognitive), but that is all irrelevant to the article which must support its edits with verifiable references. Which bring me to the discussion page for consideration of others on how to get someone to add citations to their edits without being nasty and simply entering a reversion war. --Animalresearcher 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem with the edit is the microelectrodes are inserted into the brain for studies of cognition and vision in UK primate studies, not electrodes. There is at least a 10-fold difference in size which speaks directly to the controversial issues relating to potential pain and suffering when you compare inserting something more than 1 mm wide into the brain, and when you insert something 0.1 mm wide into the brain. What's more, the references Coroebus' provided on the user talk page similarly referred to the use of microelectrodes, and noted that there are not any UK primate auditory studies that either insert electrodes into the brain or cause brain damage (because there are not any UK primate auditory physiologists). At a bare minimum the word auditory should be removed, and the word electrodes should be changed to microelectrodes --Animalresearcher 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't imagine there'd be a difference in the pain provoked by a microelectrode (a type of electrode) and a larger electrode inserted into the brain. 10pts for the first person who can tell AR why. --Coroebus 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a difference, in that the dura mater has pain receptors, and piercing it causes a behavioral reaction. Somewhat akin to a pin prick. Unless the pin is 10 times wider. Animal welfare critics are pushing neuroscientists to consider alternative methods or analgesics for this reason, which is again something people who are actually familiar with these processes understand quite well. In any case, I find the current edit acceptable --Animalresearcher 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dura mater only has sparse pain receptors (associated with blood vessels) and in those situations where an electride is advanced through the dura without local anaesthetic there is rarely a reaction (I can't say about whether it is like a pin-prick, never having had anything stuck through mine) - so it is hardly a major issue of pain and suffering! --Coroebus 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessity to support edits with citation 

message: Re this edit by SlimVirgin, obviously I have no objection to "For">"for" but I find the "animal research">"animal testing" reversion, with the justification "the article calls it animal testing, not animal research" pretty odd when the first line says "Animal testing, or animal research, refers to...".  Now many of us would rather the article was called "animal research" but to insist that only "animal testing" can be used in the body of the article is ridiculous. --Coroebus 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll change it back. I'm just concerned about the way that organization is being written about. See the article, which tries to give the impression that animal testing mostly benefits other animals. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: I've just added a number of categories which I hope will help get some more scientists interested in this article.  If anyone objects please list your disagreements here. Haber 05:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I suggest we agree to break off pieces of this article. See Frogs in research and Non-human primate experiments. WAS 4.250 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been agreed in principle. It's how to do it that's the issue. I've started doing it with the abuse section, but haven't yet edited that down, and I won't until I know what's staying in the sub-article. I think another obvious page would be the alternatives to animal testing. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and moved that section into its own article, Alternatives to animal testing. I'm assuming this won't be controversial, as it seems to be an obvious division. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, since you seem to be making progress in the general direction that also seems right to me; I'll hang back for now and let you make progress at a speed that works for you. WAS 4.250 06:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Break off pieces

message: It may already be in the article, or it may be irrelevant, but this just came out: Mismatch found between drug trials on animals, humans. A link to an abstract on the study is to the right of the article text. Anchoress 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about a new study 

message: The controversy section appears to be entirely consisted of immoral acts by scientists.
There should also be some mention about immoral acts by animal rights protestors. For some refrences, search google for "animal rights attack"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.62.243 (talk • contribs).
:This article is about animal testing, not about animal rights. To expand into more detail on this would make this article unmanagable.
:All the information in the section is presented in a neutral and unbiased manner with sources. There are counter claims to various points and evidence of legal responses to various animal rights organisations actions there.
:I would suggest you take a look at Animal liberation movement for details more related to what you are looking for.-Localzuk(talk) 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in "controversy" section 

message: On the box on the right hand side half-way down.
I suggest a few of the "lesser" animal rights groups, say Viva and PCRM are removed and replaced with some Pro-animal testing groups such as: 
Pro-Test - http://www.pro-test.org.uk
RDS - http:/www.rdsonline.org.uk
Coalition for Medical Progress - http://www.medicalprogress.org
- I won't do this myself, but would appreciate if someone could make this edit
163.1.42.170 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. You will notice some of those groups are featured in another info-box in the article, Template:Animal testing advocacy. Rockpocket 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete bias in the animal rights box - all are anti-vivisection groups 

message: Further to some recent praise, I think the article is currently stable enough to attempt a cleanup of the references, which a currently a mish-mash of about three different systems. I'll have a go at doing this over the coming days. I thought I would just leave notice here so regular watchlisters need not be alarmed at the high number of edits that will likely occur in the process. My plan is to mark any change that only involves coverting old style references to new style references as minor. Should I make any change to content other than that, I will not mark it minor, so other editors can review it easier if they choose. Rockpocket 23:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy 

message: Im sorry but when it comes to animal testing im for it in some ways and agneist it in others when its for medical purposes im for it but for cosmedics im agneist i think its a good way to test new products  insted of on humans  we use animals and can help with cures for cancer or diabetis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazerman2345 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my opinion 

message: World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week is this coming week (April 22nd - 28th, 2007), so we can probably expect extra vandalism on this and associated pages. Be vigilant, people. Rockpocket 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week 

message: I've added a box at the top to try and stop people adding poorly spelled opinions to this page. However it is indented due to the archive box. If there is anyone who knows how to sort that (probably most people) could they make it look prettier please? ImmunolPhD 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script issues 

message: Would the ongoing saga at Oxford University, with the building of the new animal research facility, the court judgements restricting protests, etc. be an appropriate addition to this article?
Splat2million 13:43, 17 May 2007 (BST)
:It might belong in the OU article.  Rklawton 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see also Pro-Test. --Coroebus 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to the "controversy" section? 

message: I have deleted a couple of bits of obvious vandalism from the start of the article, someone with more time/knowledge of the article might want to check for more...130.88.173.23 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism removed

message: Including information about shelter statistics does not make any sense in this article. It does not clarify the numbers given in the text - what could be more clear and enclyclopedic than documented numbers? Maybe the number of animals used in testing is equal to the number of automobiles produced - would including something like that clarify anything? Including numbers of shelter animals in this article does NOT clarify anything about animal testing, is not relevant, and will be reverted shortly.Bob98133 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tend to agree here. Rockpocket 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It's an attempt to minimize the number of animals killed after experiments, but that number is unaffected by the number of animals killed for other reasons, and it's a violation of SYNT to include it without a source who makes that precise point in relation to testing. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shelter statistics

message: These only include vertebrates, and certainly don't include the numbers of flies and worms used in research. I have checked and all the references only discuss vertebrate animals. Are there any objections to me correcting this? Tim Vickers 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. --chodges 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point, I'd support that. Rockpocket 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tim Vickers 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the UK at least, one invertebrate (Octopus vulgaris) is a protected animal. However, it is pretty much the only exception and there are very few used, I've modified the lead accordingly. Rockpocket 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead figures on numbers used

message: I've managed to get it down from 104 to 85 kilobytes by moving cosmetics, non-human primates, rodents, and invertebrates to their own subpages; see article for the new titles. I'd also like to remove the for/against argument section. There's some good material in it, but it needs to be written up properly as text. I'll leave it in the meantime in case anyone is gripped by the urge to do that. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't all have to search for them, the new sub-pages are: Testing cosmetics on animals, Animal testing on rodents, Animal testing on invertebrates, and Non-human primate experiments (this last one existed already, but I've moved most of the section here to that page instead). SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice. What would be great is if we could make these sub articles really comprehensive now the constraints of space has been lifted, then we could have a little nav template for them at the bottom of each page. It might also be worth creating Animal testing (disambiguation) now we have multiple animal testing articles (leaving the main page where it is). Rockpocket 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think that's a step in the right direction. Some of the organization still seems a little funky to me. For example, I think pure research should probably also be forked to a separate article, since neuroscience research on mice, for example, isn't animal testing (it's not testing any material or product, but rather, studying mouse biology). Does anybody else agree?  --chodges 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't agree with this. The researchers are testing ideas on animals in pure research and substances on them in applied research (broadly speaking). SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved the Animal testing advocacy template to :Template:Animal testing, and I've listed the subpages there. I also moved Non-human primate experiments to Animal testing on non-human primates so that it fits with the rest of the series. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the Animal Rights template. It was HUGELY redundant with the newer animal testing template. --Animalresearcher 00:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: The sentence:
:The term "procedure" refers to an experiment, which might last several months or even years. The figures show that most animals are used in only one procedure: animals either die because of the experiment or are killed and dissected afterwards.
Is referenced to a document that does not appear to discuss this topic, what page of this document did the citation refer to? Tim Vickers 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, though I would add (in my experience) that is true and could be calculated from the numbers published animal returns (though that might be OR). Rockpocket 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures were in the refs being questioned; I've added yet another one. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't find anything in these references that discusses postmortem procedures. Saying that animals are killed and then "dissected afterwards" seems unsupported, dissection would surely be relatively rare, especially in large-scale toxicology testing. I've removed this part until we can find a source that states that this is true. Tim Vickers 13:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't keep undoing my work. You've been warned about following me around before. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If postmortem procedures are in fact cited in the sources you added, what are the page numbers that are they discussed on? Tim Vickers 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference problem

message: I think we have too many figures in the article, which makes it almost unreadable and also hard to use as a resource. It doesn't really matter that 1.59 million of X were used in 2003, 1.53 million in 2004, and 1.56 million in 2005. I'll be going through removing some of these over the next few days hopefully. I'll try to pick one figure for each thing that looks representative, and leave it at that. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the error in ref 44 that corrupted most of the subsequent citations, are refs 44,45 and 46 as you intended now? I had to guess which parts you wanted to include. Tim Vickers 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: Any ideas about what to do with this section?  As written, it's a bit of an embarrassment e.g. "Humans that use medicine derived from animal research are healthier." Healthier than what? Than humans who don't use prescribed drugs even when they need to? Than humans who don't use drugs because they don't need to? Than humans who rely on alternative treatments? Than humans who use prescribed drugs that aren't tested on animals (but all are)? It's senseless.
A lot of the rest of it suffers from the same problem. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that claim was a bit strange, perhaps an "English-not-first-language" problem? Rewritten to make sense, based on source given. Tim Vickers 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've always thought that entire section was a bit stupid. There could be enough information for a subarticle on this Views of animal testing or something, but it would be much better if it was written rather than listed as bullet points. Rockpocket 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see it rewritten with claims attributed in the text. I don't think it's good enough to say "Some opponents claim X," then when you hunt down the source, you find it's a claim on mywebsite.com. We need to write it in the form of "One of the strongest arguments in favor of X, according to the Reseach Defence Society, is ..." and we should stick to the strongest arguments for and against, and not include arguments that make either side sound foolish. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments in brief

message: https://membership.ama-assn.org/JoinRenew/search.jsp?checkXwho=done# - not physician-only group, med students can also be members Bob98133 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted, and amended.--Animalresearcher 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AMA Membership

message: In working on the page on Animal testing on non-human primates I noted that the allegations of abuse on that page, and the controversy on the animal testing page, have a few things in common. In fact, EVERY item on the NHP page was also on the animal testing page. The animal testing page is 90 kb, well above the 32 kb recommended article size. If a pointer is placed on the animal testing page referring to the Animal testing on non-human primates page, it will save another 11 kb. The recommended, "guideline" article size is 32 kb, so even with this change animal testing would still be more than double the recommended size. In "being bold", I completed the duplication of the controversy subsections by listing the UCLA incident on the Animal testing on non-human primates page, and then removed the primate controversy subsections from animal testing and put in a pointer stating that further controversy involving non-human primate testing was found on the Animal testing on non-human primates page. The change to the animal testing page was reverted as vandalism despite a very clear summary statement as to intent and process. Is there some reason that the items of controversy have to stay on the main page AND be included on the break-out pages? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of splitting the page to come close to stylistic page size limits? --Animalresearcher 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd noted this already and warned  about reverting good faith edits as "vandalism". Personally, I think there should be some content about controversy on the main page, but agree the the detailed primate cases could be moved the the sub-article. Rockpocket 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length and Controversy

message: This seems very far-fetched. Animal testing uses animals bred for the purpose, with a single genetic background and often in disease-free conditions. Domestic animals are completely unsuited for experiments. If this section isn't backed by some good references over the next few days I will remove it. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a bill in Congress right now that will prohibit random source animals from being used in testing.   http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/theft/pettheft.html   There is speculation that animals are sold from shelters to USDA class B dealers, or the Class B dealers themselves, may be obtaining animals illegally. However, research societies counter that it is already illegal to handle stolen animals, and that anyone dealing in animals that end up in researcher hands must be licensed by the USDA. If the bill passes, then older domesticated animals (ie: dogs and cats) will become a lot more rare in research, which will make studying some types of disease that are more prevalent in older animals a lot harder. As an aside, in all but 13 states, animals from shelters may be sold to Class B dealers instead of being euthanized. These can very well be discarded pets, but are not "bunched". The citation I provide above can be used to say "Opponents of animal testing claim:" because clearly opponents do make such a claim. The second section though "Testing labs prefer tame domestic animals over wild strays from the city pound, because they are easier to handle." I cannot find a reference for, nor does it make sense to me as something opponents of testing would claim. HTH --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ex-domestic animals will also have an unknown medical history and may or many not have been vaccinated/undergone surgery etc, why would people chose to use such animals in research? This suggestion fails to make sense on so many levels. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It used to be quite common. Not all research depends so critically on vaccination etc. For example, some people may be interested in how the inferior colliculus of the cat responds to sound, and any old cat would suffice for research needs. The animals are picked up from the pound, anesthetized, studied, and euthanized. However, for this to work today, a Class B dealer must be involved, and if the animal was a pet, it would be illegal in 13 states. In any case, my point is that different levels of requirements occur in different sorts of testing, and domestic animals are fine for much of it. But I would remove the second sentence of the "bunching" claim if a cite doesn't show up soon. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bunching"

message: The topic is controversial. Opponents argue that animal testing is cruel and unnecessary, 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.
This is unacceptably POV. Especially as it is in the header, it should cover both sides if it is discussing controversy.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: We need to introduce the section, so that this is not just a list of factoids. Is your objection on the sourcing, the positioning or the content? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro to section on regulation

message: Slimvirgin deleted the following text. "The Health Research Extension Act 1985, which is enforced by the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), requires each scientist or institution that receives federal funds for vertebrate research to have an IACUC. The IACUC is required to ensure research adheres to the standards of the book, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Legally, every vertebrate animal used at an institution that receives federal funds, has its animal welfare regulated to standards that meet or exceed those in the Animal Welfare Act." 
I added these sentences because the current text misleads the reader into thinking that purpose-bred birds, rats, and mice, and non-mammal vertebrates, are not covered by law in the USA. However, at any institution receiving federal funds (which is nearly all of them), these species are covered, and are covered to the same set of rules and regulations that govern other mammals specifically mentioned in the Animal Welfare Act. FWIW it would be fine (by me) to have a sentence claiming that animal rights groups have challenged the competence of IACUCs, since that is additionally covered in the sub-page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of paragraph portion on US regulation

message: Tim, why did you remove that animals other than mice are used from the genetic modification section? You removed: "Smaller numbers of other animals are also used, including rats, sheep, and pigs."  Is it wrong? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are large, well-funded, efforts to make genetically modified rattus and macaca fascicularis models in multiple places. Many who work in genetic modification think this is an important research direction because of limitations in generalizing from rodents to primates. I could probably dig up some citations. The numbers, however, are VERY small compared to the mouse (I'd guess over 1000-fold difference).--Animalresearcher (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that an answer to the question? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to point out that I saw no reason to remove such a section, because based on what I've seen, there is more than that even. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: How about we trash the xenotransplantation section? I really don't see why we should highlight a single field like this. Its poorly sourced and, is of relatively minor significance in terms of numbers. If we are going to focus on a type of experiment, why not transgenesis? At the very least it should be merged into the applied research section. Rockpocket 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to that subsection and found a better source. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xeno 

message: In the Threats to researchers section, is there a reason we don't name the researcher? His name was in all the press articles about this, as I recall. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he or she was named in the reliable sources, then I see no reason why not. Though I do have an issue with a link to a site that published a private individual's phone number and address for the obvious purpose of encouraging harassment. Rockpocket 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bingo!--Animalresearcher (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was Animalresearcher who added the link and the name of the group, as he's the one who wrote that section, so far as I know. But yes, the name was published by reliable sources, which we link to, yet don't name him ourselves. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would naming the victim add anything useful to the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, information. :-) It just looks a bit odd without it. We give quite a bit of detail, so it's very noticeable that we don't name the researcher -- which would be fine if no other RS had, but given his name was in most of the newspapers that reported this, it seems strange that we omit it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's do what the best of our sources do. Which was the most authoritative of these sources? People rarely criticise you for following the editorial example of papers like the NYT. (well except on conservapedia). Tim Vickers (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose it may look odd. And I perhaps was inappropriate in not including his name (Dario Ringach). To me, he looks like someone that could be me in another six months. Someone with no history of violation of animal welfare law, someone in good standing with the scientific community, and well respected by his peers, who has his career completely dismantled by animal rights activists over his concerns for the well-being of his wife and young children who are being hounded by animal rights activists. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of researcher

message: Can we establish, as a consensus, that material covered in detail on the various subpages of Animal Testing only be briefly summarized on the Animal Testing page, following style guidelines of WP:LEAD? ie: If there is a subpage on the History of Animal Testing, then detailed edits would occur on the History of Animal Testing page, and the referral section on the Animal Testing page would act as a summary of the History page, roughly devoting coverage to the detailed coverage on the History page? --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less what has happened, but for you "briefly summarized" would mean one or two sentences, and would leave this page as nothing but a list of internal links. The page has to be readable, so that people could read this without being forced to go to other pages too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus on subpages

message: I really don't see the point in continuing to try to insert vivisection as an appropriately neutral term to refer to physiological experiments on animals. It is almost never used by those who practice animal experiments, and almost always used by those who oppose experiments. This careful choice of terms occurs because definitionally vivisection means cutting on live animals, and does not imply purpose in that cutting. Animal experimentation, testing, in vivo experimentation, etc, all imply purpose. In any case, I don't see the point in re-defining the common use of the term here - it is a PR stunt. However, I will happily recant if you can find some evidence of the use of the term by physiologists to describe their own work. I have never heard it used in such a context (by a physiologist to describe his own work) except in an extremely facetious tone on our way to the OR. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AR, once again you're using personal knowledge/opinion. One of the sources is the Encyclopaedia Britannica. We've been through this before, and others on this page (e.g. Rockpocket) were fine with it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am happy with it as long as it is noted that animal testers "almost never" use the term. As a comparison, you "almost never" hear a white person in the USA use the word "nigger", and it is just as clearly pejorative. And if you do not see the appropriateness of that analogy it is because that word has not been applied to you in that context ie: you need to see both sides of this particular issue. --Animalresearcher (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vivisection edit

message: Crum, it was me who removed "On the other side of the debate, those in favor of animal testing held that experiments on living animals were necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge," because it's an example of a sentence that doesn't say anything. It would be like adding "Those who opposed animal testing did so because they thought it was bad and unnecessary."
We need informed opinion attributed to authoritative sources, as was done with Bernard arguing that an effect on an animal can be presumed to lead to a similar effect on a human being. That's a substantive point, attributed to a key player. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing

message: Tim, the term vivisection is more often used by animal protection groups, not just animal rights. Did you have a reason for changing it? Here for example the Guardian refers to the RSPCA as an anti-vivisection group, and the RSPCA is definitely not animal rights.  SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just linked to the page in Wikipedia, perhaps you're right, "anti-vivisection" is a better term. I'll pipe the link. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why are you linking to animal rights? AR is a very specific subset of anti-vivisection which in turn is a subset of animal welfare/protection. It's important not to get them mixed up. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but "animal protection groups" was wrong as well, since as you say organisations like the RSPCA are certainly animal protection groups, but are not opposed to animal experimentation. "Anti-vivisection" is most precise, but what is the best page to link this to? Should it be linked at all? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I wouldn't link it, but if you want to, "animal welfare" might be more accurate than "animal rights." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The link was removed, that seems a good call. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Why don't we want to say that Bernard's wife founded the first French anti-vivisection society? It's been removed twice, but it's a fascinating detail, and shows what a polarizing issue this is. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernard

message: Someone here was asking elsewhere for definitions of primary and secondary, so I'm posting this from an early version of WP:ATT, which I think is clearer than the defs on the current NOR page:
Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources, though of course primary sources can be included -- they just have to be used very carefully. The more controversial the subject, the more care is required with their use. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary/secondary sources

message: Animalresearcher, you added elsewhere an example of the kind of material we need here. Talking about the development of the polio vaccine with Rhesus monkeys, you wrote: 
The sentence about how 100,000 monkeys were killed producing vaccine for 65 x 100,000 is exactly the kind of material we need in this article. If we could isolate a couple of very stark cases like this, where the benefits of the research were clear and direct, and then also find good sources discussing the cost, we could make a really neutral presentation that I think readers would find very educative. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only all the references were as concise and to the point on the animals used and benefits provided...--Animalresearcher (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example of the kind of material we need

message: I agree with the inclusion of this material. However, if we are including voluntary experiments on humans in this article we need to modify the sentence in the lead that states "Opponents argue that animal testing is cruel and unnecessary,..." into "Opponents argue that some forms of animal testing are cruel and unnecessary,". I would be very skeptical of any claim that people regard human experiments with the full consent of the participants as cruel. 
Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about non-human animal testing. If people want to create a separate page on human volunteers, that would be good. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored to the lead that the article's about non-human animal testing. We used to say that, but someone removed it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity, why do you favor restricting this page to non-human animals? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's what the terms animal testing, animal research, and animal experimentation refer to when used by all the reliable sources. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: True, illogical but common. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human self-experimentation

message: Current: Animal testing or animal research refers to the use of animals in experiments.
Proposed: Animal testing or animal research refers to scientific medical or biological experimentation on living animals.
Reason:
# We are addressing science related behaviors and not other possible uses of animals in experiments.
# We are addressing  medical or biological related  behaviors and not other possible uses of animals in experiments. (There is significant but not total overlap in these terms.)
#"the bodies of living animals" rather than just "animal" to rule out experiments on dead animals and on living tissue seperated from the body (e.g. blood).
Things ruled out:
#Children experimenting with insects. (unscientific)
#Parrots experimented on to judge their IQ. (psychological, not medical/biological)
#Experiments with blood or other tissue removed from an animal.
#Experiments on dead bodies. (If we want to cover that we should explicitly say so.)
WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "living animals", which is a bit simpler. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of precision in the first sentence to clearly identify the subject of the article 

message: I've moved the arguments to Talk:Animal testing/arguments, because the section was very disjointed. I'm going to start working on an ethics section, which I'll do on an article or user talk subpage until there's a first draft. My thinking is that we should have a separate article on that issue, and include a summary-style section here. Hope that works for everyone. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. The ethics are very badly covered here, considering how much has been written about the subject. We could try to put the arguments in the wider philosophical context of ethical thought, particularly the arguments about utilitarianism, the concept of rights and the various definitions of personhood. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments

message: With regards to the recent reverting over the meaning of the term:
*The Ethics of Animal Experimentation by Donna Yarri (), p12: "The term 'vivisection' was used often in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to refer to animals experimentation. It specifically meant the dissection of live animals, but is now broader and includes the use of animals for the induction of disease and for educational purposes. This term has largely been replaced by the term 'animal experimentation', both because the former word has developed a pejorative sense that many do want want to attribute to animal research and because animal research has to do with more than literally dissecting animals."
*"vivisection" The Oxford Companion to the Body. Oxford University Press, (): "From the Latin vivi, living, and sectio, cutting, vivisection, strictly speaking, means cutting live tissues. As such it could be applied to any surgical procedure, including human operations. In practice the word is often used pejoratively as a synonym for experiments on animals, implying cruelty such as the infliction of operative techniques without the use of an anaesthetic."
* Paixao, Rita Leal; Schramm, Fermin Roland. Ethics and animal experimentation: what is debated?. Cad. Saúde Pública,  Rio de Janeiro, 2007:  "Although the uses vary widely, the term 'animal experimentation' has been used generically. According to Paton (1993:24), this approach makes better reference to the wealth and diversity of scientific research...  However, animal protection groups prefer the term vivisection and claim that scientists use the term 'experimentation' so as not to reveal what is really going on (Schar-Manzoli, 1996:3)."
*Pierre A. Fish, Zoophily versus Homophily, Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, Vol. 18, 1897, p142: "The onward march of events, accompanied by new conditions and new methods, has given a much wider significant to the term vivisection than was formerly attached to it. It is quite commonly regarded, by those opposed to the practice, as a method for inflicting ... excruciating pain."
*Richard Dawkins in Student MBJ: "Many animal research activists use the term vivisection - as in cutting open the animals without anaesthetising them. If that's happening, I'm passionately against it. I hope and believe that that is not happening in research laboratories."
Its pretty clear that there is a tension between the pro- and anti- community in the use of the term vivisection as a synonym for animal experimentation. Both groups have their own reasons for wanting it commonly used or not used (both, presumably, because of the imagery it invokes). I think there is significant enough sources to note this difference in use explicitly, rather than just giving two contrasting and attributed definitions and leaving it to the reader to work out. Rockpocket 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for collecting these, RP. It's because of the tension between secondary sources that I used the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This is when good-quality tertiary sources come in handy. But if you want to nuance the section a bit more, that's fine by me.SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On vivisection 

message: :Tim, your patience is amazing and is an example to us all. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is a case of extraordinary patience from one individual (not that Tim isn't a paragon of patience, I'm sure), its simply that there are two very different ways of approaching this subject, ideologically and practically, and it can take some discussion to reach a common understanding of both positions. Its to everyone's credit that they can do so while keeping cool heads, maintaining good faith, and being open to an appreciation of alternative POVs. While occasionally things may get a little testy, I am always quite impressed at how controlled the discussions are on this page, considering the controversy around the subject, and how compromise is often generated. I think this talk page, and all its major contributors, are a fine example to the project. Rockpocket 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulatory section break