Jump to content

Talk:Animal testing: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 64.183.94.5 to last revision by Rklawton (HG)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{poop
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=22:49, 22 March 2008
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=200170996
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=Natural sciences
}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Animal rights| class=GA | importance=Top |nested=yes}}
{{Biology|class=GA|importance=Low|nested=yes}}
{{WPMED|class=GA|importance=Low|nested=yes}}
}}
{| class="{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk}} messagebox"
| {{#if:{{{header|}}}|rowspan="2"}} align="center"|[[Image:Info {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}||non-}}talk.png|Info]]
{{#if:{{{header|}}}|
<!-- -->! Notice: {{{header}}}
<!-- -->{{!-}}
}}
}}
|align="left" width="100%"|'''This page is not the place to give your views on animal testing'''. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page [[animal testing]].
|align="left" width="100%"|'''This page is not the place to give your views on animal testing'''. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page [[animal testing]].

Revision as of 17:23, 26 April 2010

{poop }} |align="left" width="100%"|This page is not the place to give your views on animal testing. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page animal testing. |}

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Back out edits to lead

The LEAD section should refer roughly proportionally to the material in the page. The Fbrnabr edits, while referenced, distorted the LEAD from its prior balance - a balance which had been carefully sought and fought over. Including that much PRO-testing advocacy in the lead will require space for rebuttal - and the page will degenerate into a fight over advocacy. Advocacy has its place - pro AND con - but this page is about the use of animals in testing, teaching, and research, and not principally about advocacy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. Rklawton (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article is not supposedly a pro AND con article I find that it is strongly biased towards con views. It would not require much extra space to provide facts on the number of medical cures/drugs and nobel prizes attained through animal testing --Timmyoz (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's discussed a bit in "Prominent cases" further down this page. I've been meaning to add stuff, but haven't had the time. If you can add it, go right ahead. Mokele (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Sentence

I find this terminology a bit strange:

"Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments". (my bolding)

Is "non-human animals" a standard terminology used in animal testing nowdays? (Í've seen it used elsewhere in a similar context.) To me it seems a bit POV, 'left-wing', 'politically correct'. Are we equating humans to animals here? Sorry for being 'specie-ist' but wouldn't plain 'animal' do? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"used in animal testing"
Wikipedia is for laypeople, not (only) people in the animal testing industry. If a person already clearly understood what it is, they wouldn't be here. I don't see a problem with being clear. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see that this answers my question. Surely 'animal' means 'non-human'? That seems clear to me. And I am a layperson not involved in animal testing. My question still, is 'non-human animals' a common term in this context? To me adding to animal is mere 'puffery'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely 'animal' means 'non-human'?"
No, that is a subject of debate, or depends on your viewpoint. See our animal. Nine characters is a small price to pay for clarity. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-human animal is clear. Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-human animal" is the standard term, both in the science and bureaucracy of this topic. There's also no controversy - humans are animals, and to claim otherwise is like claiming flowers aren't plants. Mokele (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not define words; dictionaries define words. The usage of the term "animal" in animal testing already implies non-human animals. Not one person in the world would be confused to think this applied to testing of humans, so there is no point in arguing that clarity applies. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we yet have consensus to change the sentence. I agree with Reisio, Bob, and Mokele, that the descriptor is helpful. There is "animal testing" and "clinical testing". Although I agree that it is fairly obvious that this page is about only those animals that are non-human, I see it as a matter of precision of language to spell it out, and I do not think it creates any problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the 'variety' of replies. Mokele seems to have answered my original question, though I still feel 'animal' on it's own is sufficient. I am also feeling that I may have been better off not asking the question in the first place. I was not aware when I asked, of the depth of feeling in this area of Wikipedia. I was not making any claims, trying to be controversial, 'stir the pot' or make a point. Just a simple question (I thought) about terminology. It seems I have perhaps got involved in an existing 'controversy', as I wasn't suggesting changing the sentence. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't feel any regrets about bringing it up. I hope you always feel welcome to take part in Wikipedia. This is just one of those things where different editors have different views, and I'm sure no one has any negative feelings about discussing it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I may just go back to 'less' controversial subjects like allegations of 'ímproper conduct', made recently against a highly placed swimming coach in Australia. When I updated the persons Bio. it hardly raised a murmur! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy editing! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you first ask - "Is it unclear?" - I think the answer is no. The title of the page is not non-human animal testing, nor has anyone ever posted anything under that topic anywhere. Dictionary definitions include both humans as animals (strictly speaking in terms of whether a species belongs to the animal kingdom), but also a common usage of animals to refer to species that are animals but not humans. The rationale for including the modifier non-human on animals is that you want to remind the reader that humans are animals, too. In other words, this is an issue of WP:NPOV, and not an issue of clarity.--Animalresearcher (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Well, that's a first, someone thinking that I have an anti-research POV!) The way I see it, the wording does not serve to remind the reader that humans are animals too, but to remind the reader that research is done on animals and not just on humans. I think that your reversion is against consensus, but I will not revert you, pending further talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I *will* revert it, however. The plain fact is that "animal" includes humans. If you want to disagree, find me a source that classifies humans as plants of fungi. Until then, stop vandalizing the page over your silly semantic quibble. Mokele (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but in fairness, that was not vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you use a dictionary, there are multiple definitions of "animal". Most of the definitions, when not used in a scientific context (as in talking about classification of species) imply non-human. Please, go look up the defintions! The animals covered by the page are enumerated in the next sentence - from zebrafish to non-human primates. The fact that non-human primates are mentioned in the next sentence, and humans are not, already tells the reader that human testing will not be covered. There is NO issue of clarity if no one would be confused by the usage of the term without the "non-human" modifier, and I contend that is the case here. This is a case of "Omit needless words" in the Strunk and White sense. the only rationale for including the modifier "non-human" is to redundantly remind the reader that humans are animals, too. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Animalresearcher - I understand the point you're making and would agree with you if the "non-human" were used throughout or elsewhere in the article. I think in this case, it clarifies the topic since in vivo research is mentioned in the same sentence which might imply humans to some. The non-human is also notable since right after this, the article discusses various species used, so mentioning one as always excluded seems equally notable. Bob98133 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-human is used in the next sentence, and EVERYWHERE that primates are mentioned! --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Animalresearcher on this. The article is "Animal testing", and I don't believe English speakers would ever consider humans in this context. As a result, any use of the term "non-human" in this article is inappropriate, for if it is specified in one section, it's omission would be marked in others, and so it is preferable to omit it entirely. Rklawton (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps changing the article title to "Non-human animal testing" would be fairer and also simultaneously let readers know the point of view of the authors. I think that's a great idea. Haber (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enthusiastic about that rename. It does occur to me that, if we delete the words, the sentence essentially becomes: "Animal testing... is the use of animals in experiments." (with the also-known-as in the ellipsis). That seems like saying next to nothing. As a long-time animal researcher myself, and as someone who has very sensitive radar for anti-research POV, I continue to be puzzled by the perception that this particular wording is POV. As for the issue of saying it in one sentence, but not in others, I would think that saying it once conveys the information, that then need not be repeated endlessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Haber was being sarcastic. I don't think anyone would support the rename, yet the issue at hand is almost identical. That's the point. You seem to think the most significant contribution of the first sentence is to tell the reader that the page does not cover humans. I think, and I think the english language supports me, that point is already abundantly clear. Why not "Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of animals, from zebrafish to non-human primates, in experiments. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide are used annually." This wording avoids the silly use of "non-human animals", cleans up the second sentence, and conveys the same points.--Animalresearcher (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an excellent suggestion! It's really much better than what the page says now, and it makes the argument here moot, in that "... to non-human primates" leaves no ambiguity at all. There's only one, relatively minor, point that I would tweak. In the current version of the page, "from zebrafish... " refers to vertebrate animals, whereas the new version would be discussing all animals used in experimentation, so we would need to say something about invertebrates. I'm thinking something like "from nematodes through zebrafish to non-human primates". I'm not sure if nematodes (as in C. elegans) are the right choice though. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the construct "from ______ to ______" conveys no real information beyond the two species, and is an intellectually lazy reference to the antiquated "Scala Naturae" way of thinking. I might as well say "from sponges to fish", since, if you just plot the phylogenetic tree right, that can bracket all animals, including humans. Call me picky, but I don't think we should compromise accuracy and perpetuate outdated concepts in favor of minor quibbles over readability. Mokele (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That point exists whether the page reads as it currently does, or whether it is changed as I suggested. It makes no difference. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, it doesn't. If you say "non-human animals", I can immediately know what species are included (every animal except humans). The silly "from nematodes to non-human primates" gives no such clarity. Are we talking about triploblasts only? Is work on sponges "animal experimentation"? They're not included in your scale. Do you just mean Deuterostomata and Ecdysozoa, but not Lophotrochozoa? Ctenophora? Even if you sepcify "sponges to non-human primates", it still relies upon a completely arbitrary scala naturae. Face it, it's a bad choice of phrase, and I'll revert any attempt to include any "from ____ to _____" Mokele (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta makes it hard to AGF. Especially when you reverted a from ___ to ____ and replaced it with a different, worse, and equally arbitrary one. --Animalresearcher (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is "non-human animal" arbitrary? It's the technically accurate term for the scope of the article which, in less than 20 characters, completely conveys which species are within the scope. I'm only suggesting we prefer accuracy over vernacular definitions and literary devices which rely on obsolete concepts. Mokele (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

I restored the original term "non-human animal" because I believe it is shorter, simpler and clearer than the other language, which assumes an undefined sequence (from X to Y). Crum375 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it seems to me that the wording that Animalresearcher had provided, before it was reverted, was better than what we have now. The very inclusive "from invertebrates... " (which is much simpler and more accurate than the nematode wording I was trying out above) is superior to the wording about zebrafish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Seriously, how is it hard to understand this? Any "from____ to ____" is poor phrasing, unscientific, uninformative, and actively perpetuates an obsolete concept. Pretty words are not more important than accuracy. If you do not understand this concept, go back to editing Family Guy episode summaries. An encyclopedia which is not accurate is worthless, however 'readable' it is.Mokele (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For some reason, there are people here who feel uncomfortable to be called "an animal", and they transfer this POV (or religion?) to articles. If you look up animal, you'll realize that humans are animals. The first mention of "animal" must clarify that "animal testing" is for non-human animals. Anything else is unscientific and incorrect. Crum375 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here edit Family Guy? I don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't define words. Dictionaries define words. Webster defines the term "animal model". It SPECIFICALLY refers only to non-humans in its use of animals. This is entirely comparable to the use in the term animal testing. [1], It also defines the term "animal control", which, once again, does not refer to humans, and no one is confused. It would appear that some wikipedia editors want to re-define the word animal by usage. --Animalresearcher (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific definitions take precedence over dictionary definitions. Dictionaries define "toad" as "any warty amphibian similar to a frog", which is just plain wrong, and just about every other entry for a vernacular term of a taxon either supports me by specifically defining them by scientific classification, gets it wrong, or both. Scientific terms always take precedence over dictionary definitions. Mokele (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across this argument, and I have to ask this to those opposed to the “non-human animals” wording, since I don’t think this was answered (though I haven’t read all the comments): How is “non-human animals” (meaning any and all animals that are not homo sapiens) less clear than a more wordy list or range of the same? —Frungi (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how do you define a "range"? Brain size? Crum375 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about a word list then? Clearly not all animals are subject to testing. A word list can sample from the prominent and common animal models (note I did not need to say non-human animal models and you were not confused). C. Elegans, zebrafish rats and mice, non-human primates?--Animalresearcher (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the list I just added? Also, just about any animal that's accessible is subject to testing, not just a handful of model organisms. I've worked with nearly two dozen species in 5 classes so far, without even touching a model species, and I'm about to double or triple that in just one study. And I'm *far* from broad in my focus - plenty of folks put me to shame. Mokele (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I meant without the non-human modifier. There are LOTS of animals not subject to animal testing, and humans are only one of them. We could change the name to "non-elephant-seal animal testing." Or maybe "non-giant-panda animal testing". "Non-zebra animal testing"? --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't get out into the comparative literature much, do you? I can find examples of experiments on just about anything, including all three of those species, on whales, on sponges, on tardigrades, on scorpions, on hagfish, on anemones, on starfish, on gibbons, on bats, on gliding frogs, on sea squirts, on tapeworms, on spiders...anything. The only barriers are technology and accessibility, both of which can be overcome in time. "Animal testing" does not rule out *any* species except one - humans. True, some species are harder to get at because they're endangered, lethally dangerous, the size of a house, etc., but even these can be experimented on with the right methods (non-invasive methods, telemetry, etc.). Hell, I can do animal experiments on Lonesome George, the last of his kind, providing it's something non-invasive like force-plate measurements as he walks. I could do feeding mechanics experiments with coelacanths with a submersible, bait, a video camera (and more money than God). The only species which *cannot* come under the scope of 'animal testing' is humans. Mokele (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is fairly concise the way it is now. Animalresaercher - the only way that I could agree with removing or somehow replacing the non-human would be to include humans in animal testing, but then add that this is generally, but not always historically, considered unethical. In that case, animal testing would include all animals, including humans. I think this would make things more confusing, since then advertising, surveys, vaccine trials, and other human studies would fall within the purview of this article. This text has been in place for more than a year, why has it suddenly become controversial? Bob98133 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am satisfied with it as is. Just to be clear: I fully understand that some editors feel that "non-human" conveys an animal rights-leaning POV by drawing attention to something that is already obvious. And, I fully understand that some other editors feel that constructions along the lines of "from X to Y" are scientifically imprecise and substitute good-sounding words for accuracy. Truly, I understand all of that. But I'm not persuaded. It's fine the way it is now, and not worth arguing about. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In vivo?

Animal testing is not known as "in vivo". In vivo means the use of an entire (not necessarily fully intact) organism, which could be human or non-human.Desoto10 (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In vivo can apply to humans or animals, thus is a synonym of both. Mokele (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can argue it either way, but I think it's OK to continue to say "in vivo" here. The term actually means alive, and includes both human and non-human. In vivo, to which it links, says clearly that it includes both animal testing and clinical trials. It's true, therefore, that there are kinds of in vivo testing that are not animal testing, but the animal testing that is of interest to this page is in vivo testing (ie, as distinguished from animal cells in tissue culture). As I said, this can be argued either way, but I think there is no harm in leaving it as is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

asking wikipedia a question about animal testing at wikipedia the free encyclopedia

what is the year of edition for the article on anamal testing at wikipedia the free encyclopedia and also what is the library for animal testing andwho is the author and how many pages are there and what is the title of the article. Forany farther notice or help on answering the question for me. PLEASE refer to my email account at elyssd11@gmail.com thank u for the help wikipedia.--67.163.177.247 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Elyssa Deaner[reply]

Elyssa, some of those concepts do not exactly apply here. Obviously, the article is Animal testing. The correct place to ask how that sort of thing works is at Wikipedia:Help desk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent cases?

The lead sentence [All knowledge of muscle physiology is based on work done using frog muscles] seems bizarre and is not supported by the cited ref which claims that more emphasis has been placed on human muscles. I appreciate you going through this, Mokele, but I'd suggest that his be changed to "Much" or even "Most" instead of all. Bob98133 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cited ref places emphasis on human muscles for teaching purposes, but the concepts discussed were all discovered in frog muscles. The only reason anyone even uses mammals is that you can get pure fiber-type muscles (mouse EDL for fast and cat soleus for slow) and can genetically modify mice to express disease states. Even then, it's still all based on work done in frogs. Still, primary sources would be better, so I'll re-do it. Mokele (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My main problem is with the word "all" since it's near impossible to prove, like biggest, best, etc. I'm sure that knowledge about muscle physiology must have been acquired using other species as well, even if these studies are not as frequently cited. Bob98133 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Boothie1, 23 April 2010

Although no accepted in vitro alternatives exist, a modified form of the Draize test called the low volume eye test may reduce suffering and provide more realistic results, but it has not yet replaced the original test.[1]

This needs editing to.

The following was copied from: http://www.drhadwentrust.org/news/rabbit-eye-test-replacement#fn9909468184ab801ac0cd77


Acceptance by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) means that guidance is finally in place on how to conduct the tests without using live rabbits 2. Two test-tube methods for assessing eye irritation have been accepted by the OECD, the BCOP (Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability) test and the ICE (Isolated Chicken Eye) test, both for identifying ocular corrosives and severe irritants.

Whilst the Draize test will continue to be conducted for substances that are not severe eye-irritants, the OECD’s decision does mean that many thousands of rabbits will be spared distressing and painful tests that have been scientifically criticised for many decades for poor reproducibility and species differences between rabbits and humans3. Some 4,500 rabbits are used in eye irritancy tests in the European Union each year4. Global use is likely to be considerably higher.

It has taken at least thirty years for alternative tests to be approved, with research starting in the 1980s, scientific approval by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) coming in 2007 and now OECD acceptance in 2009 meaning that the new tests can be used globally.


Sources

1 Developed in 1944, the Draize rabbit eye irritation test has been the standard method for evaluating the ocular irritation/corrosion potential of a substance for regulatory purposes. Adult albino rabbits are most commonly used for eye irritancy tests because they have eyes with a large surface area. At least three animals are used per test substance. The test involves applying the substance directly into one eye (the other eye acting as a control) and observing effects for up to 21 days. Effects can include swelling, soreness and weeping eyes.

2 The OECD adopted the new methods on 7 September 2009

3 For example Weil & Scala (1971) Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 17,276-360; Freeberg et al. (1986) J. Toxicol.Cut.Ocular Toxicol. 5, 115-123; Koch et al. (1989) J.Toxicol Cut.Ocular Toxicol. 8, 17-22.

4 Latest statistics available from the European Commission are for 2005

5 The Dr Hadwen Trust funded Dr Colin Muir, a research fellow at Leicester Polytechnic. Dr Muir developed the ‘opacitometer’ which shines a light beam through the isolated cornea enabling an objective measurement of changes in its opacity. His publications between 1984 and 1987 are acknowledged as providing the essential groundwork and inspiration for the BCOP test.

Boothie1 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BUAV aso welcomed this. Thank you, I've updated the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Secchi A., Deligianni V. "Ocular toxicology: the Draize eye test," Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 6, issue 5, 2006, pp. 367–72. PMID 16954791