Talk:Animal testing/Archive 1

message: I think that this content should be merged into the article on vivisection. Comments? Rosemary Amey 21:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No Animal testing is the correct term I'm going to make some edits to this article which is going to change it somewhatGeni 13:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care which it's called, I'm just saying it should be one article rather than two. Rosemary Amey 01:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: vivisection refers to a specific practice.. Animal testing is whole area. While the vivisection article could do with a heavy change of focus it has a right to exist (the sections on history and what the practice directly involves belong there I tend to feel that most of the ethical arguments are dealing with the general subject of animal testing so should be in their article).Geni 20:19, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with vivisection

message: I fixed a ton of spelling and grammatical errors (please spellcheck, people), but I have no idea what they are trying to say in the Efficacy Studies section...if you can tell, please fix it.--Hereticam
:Tried to make it clearer. (By the way, you can quickly sign your name and the date by typing four tildes (~) together.) Rosemary Amey 01:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: i think this page also should deal with the testing of cosmetics on animals - i cant deal wit hit as i have a major POV problem with it and it'll show, but anoyone else is welcom to try it and i can chek it or whatever if wanted/needed. Selphie 09:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  
At short notice I can't think of any country where this practice is still carried out.Geni 09:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Then put in the article. Just make sure you can support any claims you make.Geni 10:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  not only medical 

message: You may well be right Kyz but I'm still unhappy with it because "most people", as you say, is an undocumented, unquantified group and I don't see the evidence to target animal rights activists in this section of the article. Maybe that part of the paragraph should be moved to the "controversy" section of the page?
(user:Wayland)
:I agree with moving the sentence to the controversy section. I have also mentioned that animal welfare activists may also mis-label all animal testing as vivisection. The statement states that the term may be used, it does not accuse all AR/AW activists of using the term (for example, the RSPCA don't; the BUAV do). Kyz 10:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyz's comment in the history 

message: 'Scientists and technicians involved in animal testing are particularly eager to shake off the image of being "mad scientists" who "torture animals for the sake of it".'
I changed this to ' Scientists and technicians involved in animal testing are of course particularly eager to shake off the image of being "mad scientists" who "torture animals for the sake of it", which has come about after several high priority laboratory raids have discovered video evidence of sadistic behaviour.'
It was reverted. The statement is true; videos such as "Countryside Undercover", "Unecessary Fuss", "Britches", the "Silver Spring Monkey" case and the recent Covance Undercover video have all shown staff taking pleasure in tormenting and making fun of lab animals. Almost every time there is a lab raid or undercover investigation sadistic behaviour comes to light. Why was it deleted? Lack of references? If I reference it will it be left in place? 
Since the person who reverted this has not replied, I have changed it back again, with referenced examples this time. I have also added a few other animal rights campaigners' claims, with references.
:You can of course prove that the mad scientist image do not predate the films?Geni 14:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mad Scientists 

message: I have also altered the comments about the term "vivisection", as before it was implied that only animal rights campaigners refer to animal experiments as vivisection, in an attempt to show the practice in a negative light. This was not NPOV, and it was unreferenced. In fact, the term vivisection now seems to be an acceptable way to describe all animal experiments. 
For example, "The American Encycloapaedia" - "Vivisection: the term is applied to all kinds of experimentation on animals whether or not cuttig is involved", "Merrian-Webster Dictionary" - "Broadly, any form of animal experimentation, especially if considered to cause distress to the subject", "Blakistons New Gold medical dictionary" - "Vivisectionist: he who practices and defends animal experimentation", www.dictionary.com - "The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research." , www.dictionary.co.uk - "the cutting up or other use of living animals in tests which are intended to increase human knowledge of human diseases and the effects of using particular drugs"
If most dictionaries describe vivisection as any animal experiments, whether or not the invlve cutting or surgery, then perhaps the pages should be merged after all?
:No. vivisection Is an a 1 form of animal experimentation it would not be a good word to describe say behaverial experiments on ratsGeni 14:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I quick search of ISI Web of knowlage supports my positionGeni 17:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vivisection vs Animal Testing

message: How about animal experiments that are carried out in basic life science research like genetics or immunology? Should there be a section about those, too? R.C.B. 20:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.Geni 22:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How about basic research?

message: I found a new image to replace the dog, and the source and authenticity of this one are  verified. I also removed the NPOV tag as it was placed there on June 6 by a user with only ten edits, , and no user or talk page, who hasn't been back since. Hope that's okay. If anyone disagrees, feel free to put it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think that we should have an image of a rat or a fruit fly instead, since they are used much more often in biological research. Primates are not used nearly as often.Gary 01:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: When did animalt testing begin?
      Depends on what you call animal testing.  I'm sure little kids have been pulling limbs off insects forever and lots of hunter-gatherers used animals in ritual sacrifice way back in the day.  The Greeks were probably the first to have something we'd call "science", and I am 99% sure they did some dissecting of things, so depending on where you draw the line, I'd say any one of those were the first. 69.205.169.113 18:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ???