Talk:Animal testing/animal testing debate

message: For the intro, the scientific debate is not entirely human-centric. For example, echolocation in bats has been famously studied, and the use of sonar by armed forces resulted from this science. This sort of work is called ethological, and it typically focusses on species that are much better at some ability than humans are (like bats and echolocation). Many people study animal systems to get at basic science goals too, and emulating the human condition is not a prerequisite. However, if you restrict animal testing arguments to medical arguments, then the human condition takes a far grander role. 
Animal welfare in the USA is not concerned with how much suffering occurs. Scientific goals are stated at the outset, and animal suffering is SUPPOSED to be minimized while not getting in the way of scientific goals. The US system has no formal cost-benefit requirement like the British system. Most science comes from competitively awarded grants, so there is an implicit cost-benefit appraisal, but much of the conducted science is pilot studies not subject to such review. So, I think animal welfare is better stated as attempting to minimize the suffering while not interfering in scientific goals. But more to the point, I would omit the animal welfare point altogether, and replace it with a point stated more like this. 
"The suffering vs gain concern centers on whether the necessary suffering is worth the scientific gain achieved in scientific studies. It is a certainty that nearly any scientific gain requires some increment in animal suffering. Where to draw the line in a cost-benefit analysis is not clear, and as new knowledge about animals occurs, that line moves, from year to year, and decade to decade, and it typically has moved to favor the animals."
This statement is a very accurate reflection of what I see happening from day to day and year to year in science, and is, by far, the most relevant issue for people working in animal research. What is allowable changes! And it changes based on logical, valid, concerns for animals! Scientists are generally not educated enough on welfare, and clinical veterinarians marginally so. And as education on welfare and necessity increases, procedures change. As a side effect, research also becomes more costly. And just so we're not TOO disjointed, you mostly say the same points I make above - but I think "animal welfare" is a bad term, if used in the USA it means any scientific rationale comes first - animal welfare merely means adhering to standards as long as they do not interfere with testing goals. 
The section on species specificity should make a note that it is a tenet of the european and US systems that animals phylogenetically more primitive are to be preferred unless there is a scientific justification for using a "higher" animal (one of the three Rs). This is a formal goal (although in the US system IACUCs will accept very flimsy excuses). I suppose it would become quite a fight if someone wanted to use an Ape or an endangered species, the IACUC would realize it had to have a cost-benefit to rely upon, but when it comes to using a rat or a cat or a monkey, and all would be purpose-bred, any excuse will do. However, there must be a justification for EVERY use of a species in an IACUC protocol - this is a formal requirement, and no protocol would be passed without it. 
IACUCs. The formal role of the IACUC is to enforce the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory animals, as per the Health Research Extension Act 1985. Every vertebrate animal must have its animal welfare regulated to the levels in the Animal Welfare Act, as well as adhere to all local laws. However, scientific goals come first. That is, anesthesia, analgesia, euthasia, food, water, caging, and enrichment (and maybe some other attributes of welfare I cannot recall presently) must all meet certain standards, unless the scientific goals require otherwise. And generally scientists walk that line, and some standards are not met, others are, depending on the experiments. But any standard not met must be formally justified by scientific necessity in the protocol.
I'll try to get back with citations in the next week or so. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk back/food for thought