Talk:Animal testing/Archive 2

message: To the anon IP: you asked for details of the famous experiment where monkeys were hanged upside down. It was conducted in the 70s by Harry Harlow and Stephen Suomi. They took six-week-old rhesus monkeys, and placed them upside down in vertical-shaped stainless steel containers for between 45 days and two years. The aim was to produce what they called a "well of despair" to cause depression in the monkeys. Photographs of the chambers are here.    They were fed through a grid at the bottom. When they emerged, they were psychotic, and never recovered. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Well of despair

message: I've started trying to make this article more factual and more descriptive of what animal testing is, rather than just having a list of pro and con arguments. I've taken a lot of the information so far from BUAV, which relies on reports from the British government, so the information is sound, but it's very oriented to the UK at the moment. When I next do some research, I'll try to get similar information for the U.S. and Japan, which are the two big testers outside Europe.
: BUAV stands for British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection: hardly presenting a NPOV. So they "rely on reports from the British government". Only in the sense that they take them and twist them to their own ends. See for instance these RDS news pages ,, and . Try following through some of the links from these pages if you don't believe this is credible. 82.6.117.213 14:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also expanded the pro section and reduced the anti section so that they're more equal in size. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've added a few sources as embedded links, but haven't yet added full citations to the references section. I'll do that next time I'm editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gary, just to let you know, the link you added  doesn't seem to work. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Toxicology tests and drug testing make up about 15% of animal procedures in the UK and likely the rest of the world (you can get comprehensive stats from the UK Home Office). So what about basic and applied research and drug development (although efficacy tests and metabolic studies, which are under presently under drug testing, are part of drug development), and breeding of GM animals? 
Because it is incomplete, this section is skewed. It needs to be rearranged and added to.
Worse, the specific toxicology test section is largely unreferenced, inaccurate and misleading: it reads as though it has come straight from antivivisection propaganda. This section needs to be more factual, neutral and contain citations. 
Non-neutral antivivisection organisations, particularly BUAV, are extensivley cited throughout this entry. To promote overall neutrality it would be a good idea to cite some of the more scientifically based organisations such as RDS , CMP , the Biomedical Research Education Trust  or the Royal Society . One of the most recent, neutral and comprehensive sources on the whole issue of animals in medical research is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report  but it doesn't get cited at all. 82.6.117.213 12:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, 82. It's not that the section on types of tests is deliberately skewed, just that it isn't finished. Gary is thinking of adding a section on pure research. I'll find citations for the different kinds of toxicology tests. The reason BUAV is quoted a lot is in part because they have a lot of stats on their website (e.g. from the British government). Thanks for providing the Nuffield Council link. I'll take a look at it later. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that you and Gary are going to add more, and this may improve it. I think it's OK to quote verifiable *facts* from BUAV, but not their colourful language and spin. But it's always better to use a primary source if possible - if BUAV "quote" the British government, then why not find the original - bound to be more reliable and robust - and quote that. 82.6.117.213 14:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of experiment 

message: An anon just added this: "According to the U.S. Foundation for Biomedical Research, "[a]nimal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health." [5] Since its inception in 1901, approximately 70% of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine have been awarded for medical advances that have depended on animal research. Examples which have changed the world include the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplantation (dogs) and work on poliovirus that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys).[6][7]"
I think this will need to be edited down; it's going to make the intro too long because we've yet to add a pro-testing paragraph. The first two paras are descriptive, and the last two were going to be pro-testing and anti-testing, one each. The inclusion of a second pro-testing para throws this off balance. I won't edit it just yet because I want to write the anti-testing one first, then check for length. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest that if you edit it down you still retain the new bit somewhere prominent? I think it's quite important to have good referenced sources of the medical benefits of animal research as this is the main pro argument. 82.6.117.213 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro again