Talk:Alternatives to animal testing

message: The quote at the end of the article is almost certainly inaccurate. I've checked 12 western countries and all require substantial procedures to be performed on animals by medical students. Unless he is (falliciously) referring to 3rd world countries with low requirements of course....
:I think the quote should be restored both because it is a referenced quote and because checking 12 out of more than 190 countries isn't really definitive, even for OR. Besides, I think it would be difficult to determine. For example, to find out that information for the US, you would have to go to 50 different state agencies for vets, same for doctors, etc. Based on this guy's position and that he was quoted as an expert in the media, I think the quote should be restored, at least until someone can provide a better reference that either supports or refutes this statement. Bob98133 (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the anon's removal of the section; it seemed more related to 'animal testing' than to alternatives to animal testing. Perhaps if the info was integrated better into the article, it should stay, but I see it as a touch superfluous on this particular article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Quote

message: Link number 3 is not woring for me. Link #4 leads to a for-profit company advertisment page with very little substance. Note: link #3 should lead to the same company. Bottom line: The claims that there are computer simulations for asthma and diabetes are unsubstantiated.
:I have rewritten and added a lot of material to this - it was pretty short before and left out a lot of stuff. Hopefully, all the refs work and the content is OK. Please review and make changes where needed. It could still use a couple of refs. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to sources 

message: An IP editor (and not me!) put an NPOV tag on the page. The edit summary was: "These lclaims all seem to be to activists on one side of a debate with a very serious agenda...I find the claim that "most scientists agree..." in the intro very questionable, and the citations biased". Actually, I think that the comment about the lead sentence is a valid one, and I'm going to modify the sentence accordingly. It may perhaps also be reasonable to look at whether the examples or the sources are skewed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: The following: "Cell culture is currently the most successful, and promising, alternative to animal use." needs some kind of source.  Cell culture is widespread in basic and applied biological research and is used primarily because it works for a variety of research needs, not because it is an alternative to animal use.  Just because a lab uses cell culture techniques does not mean that they do so as an alternative to animal use.  I'll look around at the NIH website to see if they have a statement that could support current wording.  Also, ref #12, at least the abstract, which is all that I can access is a very poor source for the paragraph that contains it.  The paper seems to conclude that the test in question doesen't actually work.Desoto10 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the sentence is badly flawed, but I actually see it as a simple instance of WP:PEACOCK, so I toned down the sentence accordingly, which I hope fixes the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I further softened your version Tryptofish and added something about the use of fetal cows to produce all of the fetal bovine serum used to feed virtually all mammalian cells in culture.Desoto10 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit is a big improvement on mine. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim needs a reference

message: Sidelight12 Talk 22:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiversity related article

message: As a fairly recent editor to this article, it occurs to that this article as it now exists does not deserve the lack of neutrality tag it currently has.  I propose this be removed.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . I agree, and per no reply in two years at #NPOV tag, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of neutrality tag 

message: The list of animal welfare groups is unhelpful for this article. More important is the second list of organisations whose primary work is to replace (and refine and reduce) animals in research. London prophet (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: AGREE Section 9 "Institutes and national or international organizations" is far more relevant to the article (is that the one you meant?)__DrChrissy (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, remove section 6 completely and raise the profile of section 9 London prophet (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose Deletion of "Animal welfare and animal rights organizations"

message: As of late April 2015 I'm working on an update of this article that will add information about U.S. government agency activities in this area. My revisions will need to go through internal review and that may take a while but I want to let other potential editors know they are coming.NICEATM (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently drafting update 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130627133143/http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/about_docs/ICATM-MOC.pdf to http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/about_docs/ICATM-MOC.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Alternatives to animal testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713121849/http://www.jpharmacol.com/text.asp?2010/1/2/108/72353 to http://www.jpharmacol.com/text.asp?2010/1/2/108/72353
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The statement, "Several tissue culture methods which measure the rate of chemical absorption by the skin have been approved by the OECD," is not accurate. OECD has adopted two methods for measuring skin absorption. Test Guideline 427 is an animal method. Test Guideline 428 does not use live animals but uses skin tissue from a human or animal donor so is not, strictly speaking, a tissue culture method. Reference: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of-chemicals-section-4-health-effects_20745788.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSSprankle (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin absorption tests 

message: The discussion of the use of BlueGene L to model the function of a mouse's brain does not seem relevant to the topic of alternatives to animal use. While it's an interesting project, the description doesn't relate the model to potential replacement of animal use for a particular application. Suggest deleting, "In 2007, U.S. researchers...lacked the structures seen in real mice brains." Cheers-- CSSprankle (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouse brain simulation 

message: The second paragraph under the section "Microfluidic Chip" discusses the challenge of finding appropriate materials for microfluidic chips. This does not seem to be relevant to a discussion of the devices' potential use for replacement of animal use, and may be better suited to appear on the "Microfluidics Chip" Wikipedia page. Cheers-- CSSprankle (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microfluidic chips 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alternatives to animal testing. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://altweb.jhsph.edu/mabs/ascites.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101045330/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/epaa/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/epaa/index_en.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v13n3/AWICBulletinV13N3.pdf
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) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified