Talk:Animal testing

Merge with vivisection

I think that this content should be merged into the article on vivisection. Comments? Rosemary Amey 21:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)

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)

Cleanup

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)

not only medical

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)

At short notice I can't think of any country where this practice is still carried out.Geni 09:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

its still carried out all over the world......people just like to keep it hush-hush as they know it causes major uproar. next time you go buy shampoo, soap or somesuch just have a look on the back of a few different brands, some say theyre not tested on animals (which is often a lie - either in part or wholly) and some dont. look it up on google or yahoo for details or i can give you exapmles of one type of testing if you really want. Selphie 10:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) **

Then put in the article. Just make sure you can support any claims you make.Geni 10:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

i'll do some research first........cos obviously im gonna use facts and list both sides of the arguement. Selphie 10:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LD50

The United States and Japan are frequently criticised for their insistence on animal testing. As of 2004, both Japan and the US FDA require the results of an LD50 toxicity test on any new substance's datasheet.

What is the source for this?Geni 11:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The FDA appear not to promote the LD50, e.g. [1] [2]. See also [3]. This needs more research into the various laws.

Kyz's comment in the history

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)

Merge?

Should this article be merged with animal model? I realize that it's not exactly the same thing, but the articles could cover some of the same ground. I was also considering a redirect from animal research, but then I considered that animal research entails much more than drug/product testing. Any ideas what could be done? Sayeth 22:46, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Animal Experiments should point to Animal Testing

When you search for "animal experiments", no matches are found. Shouldn't that search just redirect to the "animal testing" page?

Mad Scientists

'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)

No, because it obviously does. I purposefully used more recent examples, as they back up the current "mad scientist" image of those involved in animal experiments. If I'd used older examples then it would be claimed that "mad scientist" behaviour no longer occurs. If I add more examples then we will have a huge long list of "mad scientist" behaviour - is this really necessary? The article is not about animal experiment exposes. In my opinion, the original sentence ("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") is not necessary anyway. It is POV. Where is the evidence that these people do have an image of beings "mad scientists who torture animals for the sake of it" that they are "eager to shake off"? Feel free to delete that sentence and my examples if you like. But if the sentence remains then so should the examples, to balance it out.

Vivisection vs Animal Testing

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)

That is your POV, but surely we should go with dictionary definitions on this? --83.216.154.56 17:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why? I quick search of ISI Web of knowlage supports my positionGeni 17:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I’m not sure what the WIkipedia policy/ guidelines are for this kind of situation. I’ve looked around but can’t find any. For me, it makes sense to go the definition in most dictionaries/ the most respected dictionaries. It also makes sense to merge the pages because:

1. Many people use “vivisection” to refer to all animal experiments. They will search for “vivisection” and not get the information they are looking for. Or they will get the wrong impression that “vivisection” can only be correctly used to refer to cutting animals. However, since I’ve added a couple of lines at the top of both articles about the term, which contains links to the other appropriate page, this shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

2. Even if you think that vivisection is only one form of animal experiment, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it needs its own page. Other kinds of animal experiments do not have their own pages (such as a “toxicity” page, a “burning” page, a “drowning” page, a “psychology” page etc), because these can all be covered under “animal experiments”. Vivisection itself can be split up into different types of surgery/ cutting, each with their own page, but this is not necessary. In the same way I do not believe that it is necessary to split up “vivisection” from “animal testing”. It is, after all, a form of animal testing.

3. There is a lot of overlap between cutting animals and other kinds of experiments. For example, psychology experiments may consist of first putting electrodes in the animal’s brain so that brain activity can be monitored or altered; and drug testing may first involve cutting the animal in order to simulate a wound before the drug is administered.

4. The “vivisection” page seems to have very little essential information. Most of it is already covered by “animal testing” and the rest can easily be incorporated into it. If we delete everything from “vivisection” that is already covered by animal experiments”, we end up with very little.

The information in “vivisection” not covered by “animal experiments” is that on human vivisection. This could either be covered on “animal experiments” in its own section (after all, humans are animals too) or a new page such as “experiments on humans” could be created.

What are your thoughts on this? If you still think the pages should be separate, what are your arguments for this? --83.216.154.56 19:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV comment about cosmtic testing

I'm removing the sentence "In terms of being worth the sacrifice of animals and the pain inflicted on them before they are killed, cosmetics are at the opposite end of the scale from cancer treatments". This sentence implies that cancer experiments = good, cosmetic experiments = bad - very POV. How do you know that cancer experiments are more "worth" the sacrifice? Only if you think that it is acceptable to harm and kill animals to treat human illnesses (POV), and that cancer research on animals always produce results that make them "worth" the sacrifice (POV). Why the random comparison with cancer treatments anyway? Cancer treatments have nothing to do with cosmetics, why bring them up? --Raye 13:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your edits, Raye. SlimVirgin 01:29, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I removed the picture of a dog. does anyone at all know where the image used in this page came from? The uploader is gone and it looks like it could be a copyvio. Also, what besides the uploader's word do we have in the way of verification on its subject?! It could very well be merely an administration of anesthesia to the dog and not a toxic industrial gas test. Why would the technicians be wearing hair nets for a gas toxicity test and no personal protective equipment to prevent breathing the toxic gas!?--Deglr6328 06:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, i've put the picture back. Reason 1: at least some picture is necessary, if this one is copyvio, let the copyright owner step up, i will look for a better one for now though. Reason 2: what did you expect the original poster to say "no, this is the correct title"? I doublt that it can actually be proven with the constraints of wikipedia. Reason 3: if you want to remove the pic, let's look for something better to replace it with. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

How would the copyright owner "step up"? Thats rather absurd, the image could come from virtually anywhere. They would have to be regularly searching the entire internet for illegetimate use of their picture!! No, what I expected was for the person who uploaded it and put it here to provide a source for the thing so it can be verified. Instead we got no response after months of waitnig. I strongly suspect that the image is not even of what the uploader claimed. Let's leave it OUT of the article and find a replacement. This article went for 2 years without a photo, it'll be fine without one for the next few days while we find a better one that CAN be verified and used here.--Deglr6328 08:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to find another replacement, and not get into the revert war with you. I am just amused how fast people are to police themselves, even when police is not around... q;-) Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

I've left a note at Image:25 DGINH.JPG. SlimVirgin 14:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

By leaving the uncreated (both source and description) picture in you completely destroy the credibility of your article and it shows you have a large bias. If you were to research other forms of animal experimentation you may come to the realization that even free ranging animals can be used in experiments without ever touching or disturbing the animal (i.e. fecal collections of ungulates for diet composition determination) is this not animal experimentation.

no it just shows that we assume good faith and tend to act slowly when we are not certain of things.Geni 00:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about being so slow to deal with that. I couldn't find a source for the image, then I'm afraid I forgot about it. My apologies. I've deleted it from the page as there's no indication where it came from, so we don't have a source for claiming it's toxic gas that's being tested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why are the two pictures both of monkeys when everyone knows that the vast majority of animals in research are mice?

How about basic research?

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)[reply]

Probably.Geni 22:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

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, Rollie (talk · contribs), 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)

POV

Some POV errors. I'm attached to the subject so I can't edit the main page.

"They also claim that the idea of "alternatives to animal experiments" is meaningless. It is impossible to find a technique that produces the same results as animal experiments, they argue, because, as one ex-animal tester put it, "it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is .. more deceptive and misleading than vivisection" (Croce 1991, p. 21)."

Publishing someone else's POV still makes it POV. There is no evidence for his/her claim provided. Also the opposing view point is not represented; for instance the title 'Abuses' hasn't got a corresponding title 'Uses'.

"However, those who argue that animal experiments are inherently unscientific say that these facilities are simply there to perpetuate the myth that animal experiments are necessary for human health, and to reassure the public that steps are being taken to find "alternatives" to what seems to many people to be an abhorrent practice."

This kind of POV-dancing is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Attributing a PoV to an imaginary person ("... those who argue...") still makes it PoV. 'Many people' is unquantifiable and unsupported. The two links following the statement are highly biased.

"Many people feel it is immoral to cause harm or death to animals for the sake of human vanity."

Again, another unquantified unsupported use of the phrase 'many people'.

I think this is enough to go on. Why has this very PoV article not been re-edited by someone with a NPoV? It's terribly and obviously biased. Not to demean the effort of the original author, or their beliefs, but WP isn't the place. The attempt is appreciated, and I understand this issue is very emotive and controversial. If this article is left untouched for an extended period of time, I shall try to bring a more NPoV slant to the article.

Countries + Current Legislation

I was wondering is somebody could come with a list of countries + states that have banned comestic testing or has restrictions on it along with countries that have banned it from happening. I only know so far the UK has banned animal testing from being performed in their country. KerryJones

Hi Kerry, well, you could do it. Welcome to Wikipedia! ;-) It would be a useful list to have, though a short one if you stick to who has banned it, but if you were to expand it to include descriptions of the various restrictions, who does and doesn't require the LD50 test and so on, that would make it much more extensive. Quite a lot of work though. By the way, to sign your posts, please type four tildes, like this ~~~~ See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

hehe, well i'm afraid it'll be awhile before I get writing an article. I'm still in the processo of learning to operate wikipedia. :)

Only cosmetic animal testing, I assume, as I know for sure that clincal animal testing is still neccessarily undertaken in the UK.

???

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)[reply]

NPOV, Expert needed

I've added an NPOV to the top of the article. I did not change anything else. I feel that this article is so heavily biased that it would be best to just delete it and start over. Animal research provides us with biological and medical information that can be obtained in no other way, and this article fails to address this.--Gary2863 23:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is completely messed up. Even other very controversial topics like abortion and nuclear power are organised by first exlaining what they are, and then discussing ethics. I think the article should start by explaining what animal testing IS, WHY it is carried out, what scientific results can / cannot be obtained from it, and THEN move on to discuss the ethical aspects of the question. (AnAnonymousGuy)

I just added the "Expert" tag: apart from the NPOV issue, a discussion of the scientific aspects is badly needed.(AnAnonymousGuy)

did my best

I tried to respond to whatever issues weren't addressed yet in the discussion. Rather than eliminating biased statements, I tried to provide the alternative perspective as close to it as possible. What scientific aspects were you hoping to see discussed?

Explanation for my edits

I moved this back to Animal testing, because that's the more common expression and the one used by the industry: animal testing gets 1,800,000 hits on Google, and animal experimentation gets 483,000. I also removed the expert tag because it was added by an anonymous IP address. I've left the NPOV tag up for now, but the editor who added it needs to make suggestions that are actionable within our policies for how it could be improved, or else the tag isn't being used correctly. I'd say the problem with this article isn't so much POV, as poor writing, poor organization, and a lack of facts from good sources on both sides.

I also removed this paragraph: "Animal testing has been used to help treat rabies, smallpox, anthrax, congenital heart diseases, rickets, diabetes, tetanus, rheumatoid arthritis, diphtheria, whooping cough, polio, mood disorders, rubella, measles and leprosy. The models have been used to make surgeries safer by testing anesthestics and anti-rejection drugs as well as developing techniques in cardiac bypass and laproscopic surgery. Animal models have the most scientific background and the highest likelihood of assisting in new treatments for cancer, HIV, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and other terminal illnesses that are currently without any cure."

I removed it because it's unsourced, and given the controversy that this page is in part about, we can't just state "animal testing has been used to help treat x, y, and z," without producing sources showing that it really did "help to treat" those diseases. The counter-argument is that animal testing does not always further research into diseases. So a source would need to be produced to show for each illness that animal testing had, in fact, advanced research into treatment options for that illness. Also, it wasn't clear what was meant by "[a]nimal models have the most scientific background." If it was meant to say that using animal models is good science, then again, this is begging the question: many scientists say it is, some say it isn't, so the view would have to be attributed to a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeek, you are absolutely right. I shuffled around the links that were scattered across the page and forgot to figure out the footnote thingie. I see how the "background" statement turned out ambiguous. What I was really trying to say is that it's the most "tried and true" method, so it has a substantial background as something that has worked in a lot of situations in the past. Does that make sense? Can you think of a better way to phrase it? 69.205.169.113 22:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 69, if you re-add the material, please be sure to add sources within the paragraph that back up what you're saying; link to them if they're online, or use a footnote or author-date reference if they're not.

I see what you're saying, but the problem is that not everyone agrees with it, so we can't state it as a fact. The best thing is to find an authoritative source who says it, and either quote them, or attribute the view to them, and cite the source after it. Some light reading: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ;-D Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks, these links are great! Let me know what you think of the current incarnation of the utility paragraph. Also a question about citing: suppose, just you know, hypothetically, that I know a lot about keratinocytes because my cell biology professor was the first person to successfully culture them in vitro. My source is definitely not published (i.e., my lecture notes), but I think it still constitutes a reliable source. What do you think?69.205.169.113 23:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, the source you linked to [4] doesn't say anything that supports your edit. You'll have to find an authoritative source, and write: "According to X," and then repeat what X has said, either as a direct quote, or paraphrasing (but sticking closely to what they said without elaborating).

Another stupid goof. Try it now.

Regarding your lecture notes, I'm afraid they don't constitute a reliable source unless they're published by a credible publisher. We only publish material that has already been published elsewhere: the criterion for entry into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We don't say X is true, and Y is false, unless it's a very straightforward thing like 2 +2 = 4, or that the sun rose this morning. Otherwise, we say "A says that X is true," then we provide information about where A said this so that other readers and editors can check that we're attributing the claim correctly. Hope this helps. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new additions to the opponents section

"The animal-testing industry is a multi-million dollar concern. Advocates of testing may argue that their interests are scientific, but they are just as often commercial.
Most animal testing is conducted for non-medical reasons
Even with medical and non-commercial research, tests are often conducted to produce academic papers in order to acquire a degree, tenure, or more funding, and not because the research was otherwise beneficial
Animal testing is bad science and reaps either few benefits or none
The suffering of the animals is excessive in relation to whatever benefits may be reaped
Animal testing, especially for non-medical substances, is excessive and unnecessary
Animal testing is regarded by opponents as bad science because:
Animals are not effective models
Results from animals can be misleading
Many drugs have dangerous side-effects that were not predicted by animal models
Some drugs have exactly the opposite effect on human and non-human animals; for example, morphine and aspirin
The conditions in which the tests are carried out may undermine the results, because of the stress the environment causes to the animals
Animal liberationists further argue that, even if animal testing did reap benefits to human beings, these could not outweigh the suffering of the animals"

None of these are cited.

Are we: a) trying to represent the views that may be put forth by opponents, whether they are justified by data or not

or

b) supplying actual data regarding these points

For instance: When it says that "Some drugs have exactly the opposite effect on human and non-human animals; for example, morphine and aspirin", it is a) TRUE that this argument is often put forth, but b) FALSE that morphine and aspirin have opposite effects.

How shall we deal with this?69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first, could you sign your posts, please? It gets hard to read and archive talk page with unsigned posts. You can add a sig and date/time by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.

As for the cites: different editors approach these types of sections differently. Because it's a pro and anti section, some feel it's okay to have broad characterizations of each position with citations. Others feel citations should always be provided. I tend toward the latter because of, as you say, the possibility of factual error, so I'll try to find references for each point I added, and if I can't, I'll remove it. Regarding morphine and aspirin, I was very tired when I wrote that and may have made a typo. I took it from a film I was watching, so I'll find a source, correct the drug (if it was a typo), or remove it.

I removed the utility section again, but then I saw you had added a different link, so I'll take a look at that. I'm wondering whether it should be a stand-alone section now that we have this pro and anti-section. Does it imbalance things a little?

It's good to see this page getting some work, though, especially by someone who cares about using good sources, so thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it's signed now. Still getting the hang of this stuff. The reason I included the "utility" section was in response to the comment that the "abuse" section made the article imbalanced. Upon further consideration, though, I think "abuse" might be a tangential issue that should be moved to a separate page--it's not an integral component of animal testing and people who defend animal testing don't defend abuse.

As far as the individual points, I worry that even with citations, some points might not be justified. The following comment is very not NPOV, so I apologize, but here goes: I have found that very many anti-animal testing sites have manipulated information and taken it out of context so that it's no longer useful. I'll go back to the aspirin/morphine example just for the sake of consistency--this example has been cited very often in anti-animal testing literature, but the problem is that it's not true. (I have read the studies they come from, and the effects they're referring to happen at doses about 500x what's administered to humans.) So I guess we're back to the question of verifiability v. truth. Does verifiability still win? 69.205.169.113 21:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, verifiability wins over truth. We only publish what has already been published by credible sources.

It may be your interpretation that the morphine studies are misleading, but it's the view of scientists who've gone on the record (if I can ever find them) that the studies are not misleading, and so that's what we publish. If you can find sources saying the opponents' analysis is wrong, then we can put that in the pro section.

As for the abuse section, I'd say it's perhaps the most central issue, not tangential. There's no indication that these are isolated cases, and the organizations that run and pay for the facilities know it goes on. In fact the entire set-up of the facilities is regarded by opponents as abusive (the design of the labs, size of cages, noise levels, lack of enrichment, lack of sunlight, lack of companionship, the way the animals are acquired, the qualifications of staff employed to look after them), which is in part why there's so much opposition to animal testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I say abuse is tangential to the topic of "Animal testing" is because the purpose of animal testing is to provide the most reliable data with the fewest confounds, and abuse is a confound in and of itself. I think the factors you bring up are absolutely concerns, but the factors currently in the abuse section (simulating sex, dancing to pop music, live dissection) are absolutely not integral to the scientific process. These things are at the heart of the "Animal abuse" discussion, but I maintain, are not really the point of animal testing.69.205.169.113 00:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you're saying. But I'd argue that's just one POV. Another POV might say it's a completely unscientific and wrong-headed endeavour, and that the conditions the animals are housed in are part of the reason it's unscientific (quite apart from the argument that animal models of disease are unlike real disease in human beings), because the stress the animals are under may affect certain results. The low wages and poor qualifications of staff are also part of the problem, and the effects of this are seen in reports of cruelty, and allegations that test results are fabricated or that data is collected carelessly. And so you might argue that we should discuss animal testing in terms of the process of scientific discovery, but you may in fact be discussing some ideal, Platonic form of that process, one which never or rarely takes place, because of all of the above. If even Cambridge University, which is regarded as a center of excellence, is leaving monkeys unattended and without care for 15 hours with their brains exposed, because staff only work nine to five, and then is using those animals in an experiment, I'd say that's evidence of a widespread failure within the scientific community to understand the scientific methods they say they're employing. If it happens even there in programs set up to research medical issues, I hate to imagine the carelessness that might be found when, say, HLS is doing commercial testing on behalf of some cosmetics company. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For all these reasons, I think it would be inherently POV to separate off any part of the process, and say of it: "This is animal testing. Everything else is secondary."

I agree with what you're saying, but I think the problem is this: some of the matters are fact, and some of the matters are debatable.

FACT: the point of animal testing is to further scientific knowledge. DEBATE: animal testing can't further scientific knowledge. FACT: the people who do animal testing are scientists DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are intrinsically abusers FACT: the people who do animal testing have an interest in good science DEBATE: the people who do animal testing are careless and cannot perform good science

Do you see what I'm getting at? There's a difference between the intentions and the ends of animal science, that much is certain. But I think it's important to clarify between fact and debate. To me, the best way to do that was to allow the "abuse" section to remain in there and add in the "utility" section to balance it out.

Even if abuse is absolutely inescapable in animal testing--which is NOT certain--it is still not the goal of any scientist.