Talk:Animal testing

Animal rights B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

This page is not the place to give your views on animal testing. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page animal testing.

Advocates of Animal Testing

I'm not sure this is the place for discussion, since there isn't any here (odd) but maybe the most recent talk page reached some sort of quota and was automatically archived? I'm sure one of you will sort it out. Anyway, the final entry of the section "Advocates of Animal Testing" says: "Animal research is often necessary for supporting animal welfare. Wild, domestic and laboratory animals all benefit from policies set as a result of animal research. In an infamous extreme case, the experiments on macaques conducted by Harry Harlow helped prove the "humanity" of non-human primates to both scientists and the general public. This lead to banning experiments such as Harlow himself conducted, as well as the far more brutal work that was the norm for the time[109]." Grammar aside, there's a lot wrong with these claims, but I didn't want to delete it right off due to the fact that it is referenced. But the purported source, Gluck JP. 1997 doesn't support these claims. Also, in the US, no particular type of study is banned. The entire paragraph should be deleted.

Secondly, what does the section just above it, regarding the number of animals eaten, have to do with animal testing? Rbogle 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section about the number of animals used for food is irrelevant - it would be like saying thousands of people are killed in wars every year so it's OK to kill one or two for some other reason. Also agree that ph about Harlow, even though referenced, is far too POV. The reference quoted has to do with ethics - how do ethics of animal experiments help wild animals? Either delete or change it to make sense.Bob98133 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Harlow claim was deleted. Good. But the other animals killed part remains. How is this germane to the question of animal testing? This isn't an article about the animal/human relationship or the general use of animals, but rather it is specific to the use of animals in science. (Personally, I think the title should be Vivisection. Animal Testing seems to be used narrowly in the US to mean product/drug testing. Oh well.) Rbogle 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that humans (and other animals) treat animals (including humans) far more inhumanely than laboratories do in many contexts (including farming) and yet receive far less attention from animal rights activists than labs do is widely considered to be strong evidence for the extremist nature of of the animal rights movement.

On the Harlow paragraph, I am not convinced the opinion of a couple people here who have their own PoV is sufficient to remove something which again has broad support in the literature (see the Harlow article for a review of this & more references.) I agree though there needs to be more references & examples about how evidence from experimentation leads to public policy on wildlife conservation. I saw an excellent talk about this within the last couple months so I will try to find my notes & track down some more references before re-editing that paragraph (though if someone else beats me to it, please be my guest!) --Jaibe 07:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My addition to the lead

I've added material about Michael Balls's recent call for a review to the lead because we've been looking for some time for material to make the lead more balanced (as it seemed very pro-testing the way it was written) and I felt this material might provide it, especially as it's from a very moderate figure. The edit is:

In the UK, Michael Balls, professor emeritus of zoology at Nottingham University — who was involved in the passage of legislation regulating animal testing in the UK in 1985 and 1986 — has accused the government of allowing scientists to experiment on animals even when the benefits are in doubt, and has called for a review of the way licences are granted.^[1]

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, SV. It seems very specific for the lead, and smacks of recentisim to me. I think its good material and should be added elsewhere in the article, but using Balls as an individual opoinion in the lead, just because he is the father of a close associate of the PM, is extreme. Moreover, his comments are specifically and explicitly about UK legislation, which hardly fits in the world-view our lead should present.

In addition, rather than highlight his (known) input into forming legislation 20 odd years ago or his emeritus position, I think it would be more pertinant to highlight his current position, as chairman for Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. He as a representative of a group with an obvious agenda in reducing animal experiments, and we should reflect that. If there is support for this addition - and I don't honestly think there will be - then at the very least it should be couched in terms of what FRAME think (in the same manner as the FBR sentence), not some hitherto non-notable, retired Prof, who gets attention now just because his son has climbed the greasy pole. Rockpocket 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Rockpocket. There are better quotes from better people that could grace lead paragraph if you feel it needs to be more neutral. A non-extremist organisation (maybe PETA) must have good quotes that can be used? ImmunolPhD 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Balls statement should not appear in the lead. It seems to me that an encyclodedia article should shy away from reflecting political news as it happens. Maybe the Balls bit could be added in somewhere else.

Regarding the notion that FRAME's obvious agenda is the reduction of animal experiments, I think caution should be the watchword. See for example their seemingly close ties to the industry: [1] and FRAME's corporate sponsors: [2] Rbogle 15:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are a lot of conflicting pieces of information here which do not all fit well into this article, I am creating a page for Balls & will remove most of the internal attempts at authority-giving in this paragraph. --Jaibe 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having now done the research & built the page, I do think Balls is an interesting person, but I agree this quote is way too weak for the intro, feel free to move or just remove it. I can't see any way to edit an improvement based on that Guardian article.--Jaibe 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Law failing animals used in medical research, says scientist who advised on guidelines", The Guardian, July 24, 2007.

[Sample-1] "Law failing animals used in medical research, says scientist who advised on guidelines", The Guardian, July 24, 2007.

[1]