Talk:Animal testing/main disputes

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: 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 

message: 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. Assessment and Control of the Severity of Scientific Procedures an Laboratory animals written by the Laboratory Animal Science Association Working Party and republished at the 200-page compendium in laboratory animal science by the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science Laboratory Animal Unit
SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit jumbled, I don't think it adds much to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I added that to explain to the reader that "pain" is a complex subject that has numerous aspects and has distinct and seperate componets that are evaluated and weighed in the planning of animal experimentation and during the operational phase. For example the 1990 Assessment and Control of the Severity of Scientific Procedures on Laboratory Animals, was written to "aid communication between all those concerned with the use and welfare of laboratory animals" and it 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. 
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)
thread_title: Pain section

message: 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)
replies: text: That's a good point. Your summary of the US-NAS report was quite informative. We can have both, without gaining any length, which fits quite well. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote changed again