Talk:Animal testing/Archive 5

message: Hello, anonymous animal researcher again. In the section on regulation in the United States, with reference to the animal welfare act, wouldn't it be BETTER to cite the actual Animal Welfare Act as found on the USDA website, instead of citing anti-vivesectionists and a UK report on the Animal Welfare Act?
Add a cite to
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm
at the end of the first sentence on regulation in the USA.
For the Animal Welfare Act not being used to regulate pain and suffering that forms an integral part of a research plan
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm
The quote on that page is
"Nothing in this Act-
"(i) except as provided in paragraphs (7) of this subsection, shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to promulgate rules, regulations, or orders with regard to the design, outlines, or guidelines of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility;"
The exception they reference (paragraph 7) is that paralytics may not be used instead of a true anesthetic no matter what the scientific goals are. I am not suggesting anything be added to the web page except the URL citation, but I am including the text to save the editors some time. This cite should be placed next to the cite for [18] right now that follows the text "...doesn't interfere with scientific merit."
For the cite on the animal species covered, use the APHIS website
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/9cfr1.1.htm
The relevant quote from that page is
"Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea 
pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being 
used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, 
experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term 
excludes: Birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred 
for use in research, and horses not used for research purposes and other 
farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or 
intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or 
intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, 
or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. 
With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs, including those used for 
hunting, security, or breeding purposes."
This cite would follow the text 
"The AWA only covers non-rodent mammals, and not mice, rats and birds,..."
HTH.
158.93.12.41 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Anonymous, the refs seem more appropriate, I don't think anyone will complain if you add them to the article. Nrets 14:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, updated statistics are good. I tried in the past to corroborate the number of institutions (8,800 seemed high), but was not as good as you at unearthing that number. From reading the article, one would think there is almost no oversight of animal welfare in the US, which is obviously not true to anybody involved in research. I have no problem with the changes. Nrets 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm all for updated stats. Good work in finding them.However, i don't see why the UK stats should be removed completely, they as as relevent as the US stats are, though they could be reworded in a slightly less editorialising manner. Sorry, i realise now that the UK data is present elsewhere. Rockpocket 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regulation

message: I'd like to request that the section on NHP use in xenotransplantation be re-written. The title and second paragraph, in particular. The second paragraph belongs in a section on controversy, not on animal use numbers, it presents a clear POV that doesn't pertain to animal use numbers. The title just doesn't do a lot for me. The first paragraph looks perfect in that section by itself. The title mostly seems inconsistent with the rest of the section on animal numbers...why a title for xenotransplantation and not other things? Xenotranplantation seems also appropriate and relevant in the section on types of experiments. But the paragraph starting "Medical journalists..." doesn't contribute on the topic of number of animals, and does contribute strongly on the topic of controversy, it belongs there instead. --Animalresearcher 19:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought the same issue up here. Rockpocket 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NHP use in xenotransplantation

message: Hey, there is a box with animal rights people, and groups. Why not
one for animal research advocacy groups ? This would be a start on 
such a list. It could be expanded to include notable individuals that
fund animal research, such as Michael J. Fox Foundation, Ronald and Nancy Reagan
Foundation, Christopher Reeve Foundation, etc.
RDS
Foundation for Biomedical Research
Patients Voice for Medical Advance
Americans for Medical Progress
Biomedical Research Education Trust
European Biomedical Research Association
Incurably Ill for Animal Research 
The American Physiological Society
The Society for Neuroscience
Pro-test UK
Patient Advocates Against PETA
States United for Biomedical Research
American Psychological Society
Society of Toxicology
FASEB
Massachusetts Society for Medical Research
California Biomedical Research Association
Michigan Society for Medical Research
National Science Teacher Association
--Animalresearcher 13:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The major problem is that the vast majority of these do not have a Wikipedia article to link to. Rockpocket 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about adding them to "Further Reading?"--Animalresearcher 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Research Advocacy groups

message: moved from talk pages
Hi Nrets! In Animal testing, you just changed the former back to the latter, writing "rm cat, this page is not only about business practices". By the same argument, one could remove :Category:Business ethics as well. 
That said, I think I see what you mean. I probably didn't choose the right name for the category. What I meant was something like "Practices disputed in business ethics". My purpose was to give them a category on their own, because the main category already contained many organizations, laws, principles, crimes, individual cases and other articles. Do you have an idea for a name that would achieve this? Common Man 00:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Ethically disputed business practices]] or [[:Category:Business ethics]]