Talk:Draize test

message: The pH values in "Rabbits are more susceptible to damage (alkaline) materials, because the pH of their aqueous humor is .82 compared to .71-.73 for man" are wrong. I think this might be 8.2 and 7.1, but a pH of less than 1.0 is that of a strong, corrosive acid. This should be either corrected from the original source or removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it, since in the talk page archive there is a comment making exactly the same point from two years ago. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pH values

message: I know this is a contentious issue and most of the people who are interested in it already have their own opinions, but listing this explicitly as an animal rights issue is already giving a certain spin to it.
I'm not editing anything, I have a pro-testing bias (as you might have guessed), and I want to get some consensus before starting a firestorm.
Some thoughts:
"Antivivisectionist" description of the test vs. "Pro-testing" description of the test.  Following the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" types of statements, each group's position should probably be headed explicitly by the term preferred by that group.  Pro-vivisectionist sounds rather inflammatory to me.
(Continued in new section so people can reply to one or the other)Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Identifying the players

message: The thing on underprediction is not stated very clearly, and including this data under a section labeled "Allegations that the evaluations are unreliable" seems misleading.  
It seems like a pretty solid safety test to me, since there's only an 0.01% chance of missing something aggressively harmful and a relatively high chance of detecting any significant irritant.  The test is, however, lousy at telling a strong irritant from a mild irritant.  For such a tiny number of subjects (1-4 rabbits), that's pretty solid.  Chances are that a cosmetic isn't going to be used if it's either, and drugs have many more hurdles yet to clear (i.e. at least 3 phases of human testing).
Current language:
"A 2004 study by the U.S. Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods reported that, using the modern Draize skin test, the "underprediction of an irritant as a mild irritant ranged from 10.3% to 38.7%, an irritant as a non-irritant ... from 0% to 0.01%, [and] a mild irritant as a nonirritant ... from 3.7% to 5.5%." [7] (pdf)."
Proposed language (see page 25 of the source):
"A 2004 study by the U.S. Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods analyzed the modern Draize skin test.  They found that the test would:
* Misidentify a serious irritant as safe: 0-0.01%
* Misidentify a mild irritant as safe: 3.7%-5.5%
* Misidentify a serious irritant as a mild irritant: 10.3%-38.7%[7]"
If there are no objections to these changes by 21Dec07 or so, I'll make them.
I'd also like to add an "executive summary" of the data.
"In short, the test will identify around 95% of possible irritants and nearly all seriously dangerous substances, but isn't very good at determining how irritating the substance is."
This statement should be reviewed by someone who is against the test, since it's more conclusive than the raw numbers.  I will not add it until I receive some sort of feedback on it.Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data presentation

message: The test means applied to around or directly on the eye. Which one? Ginbot86 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I changed the image caption to reflect that it's a PETA-owned snapshot. With no smear intended against the organization, PETA is obviously one of the warring parties on this issue and is therefore an inherently POV source of material. This is reflected in the article via the separate sections for both POVs. The caption lacked the same acknowledgment that the material was generated by one of the POVs in the debate as opposed to being generated by a peer-reviewed news service or some other neutral WP:RS. 
Secondly, while closely considering this issue, I am actually rather concerned about the image itself; I have not read or seen any research or even commentary by any expert in the field as to whether or not that actually would be a plausible image of a rabbit undergoing a Draize test. I was tempted to simply say "Looks legit", but the reality is that my opinion isn't valuable here and neither is any other editor's and we need to run on facts. This isn't like the poor monkey with the electrode in it's brain, because the photo shows nothing other than a rabbit with inflamed eyes. Nothing that provides a smoking gun. Rabbits can develop inflamed eyes for many, many reasons. Therefore we're essentially forced to accept a party's claim against their ideological enemy at face value and without any kind of corroboration. I'm not at all comfortable with that. Even the good guys are capable of propaganda. Bullzeye  (Ring for Service) 09:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Caption

message: "The Draize Test is an acute toxicity test devised in 1944 by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) toxicologists John H. Draize and Jacob M. Spines. Initially used for testing cosmetics, the procedure involves applying 0.5mL or 0.5g of a test substance to the eye or skin of a restrained, conscious animal, and leaving it for four hours.[1]"
^ Carbone, Larry. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 63, used as a source for "conscious and restrained."
You can view the page sourcing this in question here.
On that page you will notice nothing saying the chemical is applied for 4 hours. What I have heard of the Draize test is that the chemical is left in for anywhere between a couple of seconds to a few minutes, and then rinsed out, and the rabbit observed immediately, and then at progressively longer intervals. What would be the purpose in leaving a burning chemical in a rabbits eye for 4 hours? No human is going to get something in their eye for 4 hours and just leave it there stinging and burning their eyes without washing it out. I am going to remove this until this is clarified and a source to back it up. AerobicFox (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote says explicitly which part Carbone was used as a source for. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that I linked to the wrong page, but I am unsure how to link it to page 63. If you scroll down to page 63 though you will see what I was trying to refer to. It mentions the part about being restrained and conscious, but does not mention being left in for 4 hours. AerobicFox (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I was only pointing out that the footnote makes that clear. It says "used as a source for 'conscious and restrained.'" Carbone was never intended as a source for the four hours edit. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. I misunderstood your attempt to direct readers to the right page as believing that I was reading the wrong page. AerobicFox (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced info in lead, dubious? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Draize test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516043819/http://www.navs.org:80/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests to http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221063215/http://www.nal.usda.gov:80/awic/newsletters/v5n2/5n2wilco.htm to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v5n2/5n2wilco.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209092736/http://altweb.jhsph.edu:80/faqs.htm to http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm#16
*Added  tag to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=BD09E3A8-F1F6-975E-7C5A023D74150157
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516043819/http://www.navs.org:80/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests to http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_animal_tests
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018043132/http://www.iivs.org/documents/49.pdf to http://www.iivs.org/documents/49.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621035637/http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/publications/guidance/hoguidance-eye-irritation-tests?view=Html to http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/publications/guidance/hoguidance-eye-irritation-tests?view=Html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Draize test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224201649/http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/ocutox/ivocutox.htm to http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/ocutox/ivocutox.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)