Talk:Animal testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal testing is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

Contents 1 Consistency with other articles 2 Scope 3 intro proposals 4 Reverted Edit 5 Inappropriate reversion of edit 5.1 Distortion of source material 6 WP:CIV 7 Inappropriate reversion of edit 7.1 From Coroebus talk page 8 Necessity to support edits with citation 9 Terminology 10 Categories 11 What is this article actualy about? 12 Break off pieces 13 Euthanasia 14 Information about a new study

[edit] Consistency with other articles

The intro needs to focus on Animal testing. I have simplified it to be less about politicians and activists, and more about the activity. All content that didn't make the revised intro was saved and moved into the article.

If anyone would like to revert these changes, please explain to me what makes Animal testing distinct from other controversial, legal, and debatably "harmful" activities such as Abortion, Seal hunting, Logging, Tobacco industry, Petroleum industry, Whaling, Gambling, Alcoholic beverage etc. All of these articles are more straightforward and encyclopedic, and don't mire the introduction with controversy. Haber 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Please see WP:LEAD which states that the introduction should be a summary of all information in the article - a mini version if you will. Removing the details of controversy means that a significant chunk of the article is not adequately covered in the lead. If those articles do not suitable cover the full content of the articles then that is a flaw in each of those, not this one. Yes, our lead is by no means ideal but removing all controversy details from it is not an improvement.

Also, the controversial article notice is perfectly fine as this article is very prone to revert warring and all major edits should be discussed here first.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Nothing in WP:LEAD says that article introductions should be 2/3 controversy and inconsistent with every other article. This is why Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was created, to prevent obstructionist, agenda-driven, wikilawyers from twisting the rules to justify bizarre situations. Now let's lay off the WP:xxx blanky for three seconds and see if we can be reasonable. Haber 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I by and large like the new version, the material is still there, the intro is concise about the topic, and mentions the controversy. The article is perhaps 1/3 on controversy, perhaps an additional sentence or two on the controversy would be merited? It just seems, well, shortchanged. I can fully agree that as the article is roughly 1/3 controversy, the prior intro focussed too much on it. --Animalresearcher 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to edit it if you see room for improvement. Haber 01:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Haber, but there is no consensus on your radical change. Stop else you will likely be blocked for disruption. We are supposed to be creating a introduction/lead that covers all aspects of the article - not just what you think it should cover. WP:LEAD was quoted at you for a reason - because it is a guideline that has been reached by consensus in order to create good articles. I'll do a bit of quoting and explaining: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. This is quite simple to understand - it means we should be summarising the article and its controversies. Deleting large chunks of text from the lead is not a valid use of WP:IAR. This article is about a very controversial subject and the lead should reflect that. Not just provide a single line of information about the fact that it is a controversial subject.

The lead should not be a single paragraph - for an article this size it should be at least 3.

Finally, you have shown severe lack of good faith here, have been uncivil and have gone into a personal attack (calling us agenda driven). Do not do this again.

Unilateral changes on controversial articles such as this are discouraged due to the high probability of edit warring - something you have caused.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is roughly 62% non-controversy, and 38% controversy, if you dump the controversy text sections into an editor, and the non-controversy sections, and compare size. The current introduction is 70% controversy, which demonstrates there is roughly two times too much of the introduction given to controversy, it is out of balance with the article and in conflict with WP:LEAD. If it is to be three paragraphs long, there should be one paragraph, roughly equal in size to the other two, on controversy. The real problem with saying nothing can be substituted without discussion is that the editors rarely comment constructively when discussion on the introductory paragraphs is initiated, and simply revert the changes when they are made. This has occurred MULTIPLE times in the case of this page. Now, can we have a constructive dialog on the introduction, or not? If we discuss changes here, WILL THE EDITORS MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS? And if such proposed changes are met with silence, WILL THE EDITORS THEN REVERT THEM WHEN THEY ARE MOVED TO THE ARTICLE? --Animalresearcher 13:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AR. Localzuk, your whining and your empty threats are quite comical. You demand that editors come to the talk page to kiss your hand before they make any edits, then you and SV either ignore it, dismiss it, change the subject, or spew wiki code hoping to hit on some violation, often ignoring inconvenient policies and guidelines yourselves. The rules are not put there to stifle discussion and dissent. You cannot violate 4/5 pillars and then hide behind the code of conduct and hope that that insulates you from criticism forever. It's quite obvious to any reasonable person that you both want to stop all animal research, and you're willing to manipulate the system to defend this "stable" version of the article. If calling that an agenda makes me disruptive or in violation of AGF then go ahead and report me. But remember that one of the first things I heard when I started to work on this article was, "You're trying to invent a problem", from SV. I can shrug it off and defend my ideas without calling for the hall monitor. Can you? Why don't you address why you think the intro should be 70% controversy, without resorting to an obvious distortion of WP:LEAD? Haber 13:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, hopefully, dealt with your incivility on your talk page. Now, to constructive criticism of what you want to do. Your proposal shortens our current 3 paragraph lead into a paragraph and a line. This removes any summary of the article - for example, the 'notable criticism' is now compressed to a single line saying it is a controversial subject, which is not enough by far. I agree that it needs reworking but I would be much happier staying with what we have than the overly shortened version you are proposing.

You are proposing this change, SV and me are not - we have told you what we think is wrong with it but I do not feel that I have the time to make my own proposal. So, if you want the proposal to be accepted then you need to change it and gain consensus.

Also note that the use of guidelines and policies to back up our arguments isn't done to be obstuctive, it is done in order to maintain a high quality site and improve things.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We agree that the lead is not perfect. I have time to work on it, but you do not. Until you do have time, what you would like is that I run all changes by you for your approval or rejection, and unquestioningly accept your final decision. How about another way? Instead of monitoring and reverting, why don't you try leaving the article alone for a little bit of time? See what happens. I guarantee Wikipedia won't fall apart without you. Haber 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why must you be so confrontational? I have explained that your version removed too much info and that I preferred the old version, and apparantly so did SV. I have shown you why we discuss before we edit - now you just seem to be trying to pick a fight for no reason.

Your new revision is much better, however it polarises the pro and anti parts of the controversy rather than treating it as a single subject. I will not revert this one as I personally think it is a much better version than the prior version and your old suggested version.

Also, you provide a specific example of an organisation, including a quote, as to why animal testing is good but then only provide vague summary for the 'why animal testing is bad' bit. I will try and improve on this when I have some time in the next few days.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little as a compromise. I removed that FBR is pro-research bceause it suggests that others are anti-research. They are pro-testing. I restored the cutline. I restored the way the FBR thing was written because it left the Nobel Prize part unattributed. We also need more on the anti-testing position as Localzuk says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're forcing the other side to adopt your terminology. Never say we don't compromise. Haber 14:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? The article is about animal testing - so stating they are pro-testing is perfectly fine...-Localzuk^(talk) 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Haber's point is that the usage of the word "testing" already favors a specific POV, and we're compromising on its usage throughout, including the title of the article. Nrets 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Localzuk, is that "animal testing" is often used to refer to a subset of the entire body of animal experimentation (i.e., in a very literal sense, "testing" is often used do describe contract drug and toxicology testing procedures, while "experimentation" also includes the pure and applied use in universities and R&D). Not understanding this distinction is why you hear references to the "animal testing industry" and then claim notable sources describe all animal experimentation (including those in chartible institutions) as part of an industry. Not only is this misleading, but by using the low-value blanket term "testing" to cover all types of experimiment we risk introducing POV by misrepresenting the words of others. Of course, its this very reason the the antis prefer to use the word "testing" because its much harder to demonise people who are, for example, doing simple breeding experiments to investigate genetics. Rockpocket 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that personally, I have used the term 'animal experiments' and 'animal testing'. I have never used 'animal research' and have never really heard that at all either. I think one of our problems on this page is that we need to define the scope of what should be included. Once we have decided that we can choose the name that is most commonly used to describe the subject. As it stands, I think we will continually end up in this debate. So...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This disagreement seems to be rooted in US/UK language differences more than anything very substantive. In the US, animal testing, animal research, animal experimentation, and vivisection are synonyms in common parlance outside the industry itself. Research, experimentation, and vivisection are taken as more encompassing terms that subsume testing, which is commonly used specifically in reference to live using animals in any tests associated with a substance (drug or otherwise), and less frequently to a device. Covance, for example, is commonly differentiated as a testing lab while UC San Francisco is a research lab. Rbogle 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The FBR is no more "pro-testing" than NARAL is "pro-abortion". Calling them pro-testing or pro-abortion is the terminology of the anti and suggests that they value the process more than the result. The FBR simply wants biomedical research. It's in their name. Haber 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't campaign on behalf of biomedical research; they campaign for animal testing. You could just have left the description as it was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to tell them what they campaign for? The FBR wants biomedical research to be done the best way possible, whether with animals or without. You could even say they are anti-testing in certain instances, because they recommend the use of alternatives when available. All things being equal, the FBR says don't do animal research. Haber 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at their webpage, it's what they say about themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

As I said above, we need to define the exact scope of this article. I think that we should aim this specific article (and its title staying the same) at the subject of animal testing from an 'invasive experiments' pov. We could also have a 'animal research' page that discusses the higher level subject and have this as a subpage of that? Thoughts?-Localzuk^(talk) 18:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But using "invasive experiments" as a criteria is not particularly useful, LZ. Scientists would never separate their science into 'invasive' vs. 'non-invasive'. For example one study could have behavioral assays on a particular strain of mouse, combined with histological and biochemical analyses of their tissues. Would that be within the scope of the article? As RP points out, pure and applied research can also be invasive but not considered 'testing' per se. I also don't think 'animal experimentation' is good either, because it implies that the point of the endeavor is to experiment on animals, not to answer a scientific question. 'Animal research' better reflects the fact that the experiments are used as part of a larger research enterprise. RP outlined the three types of research done on animals, and I think that is a good way to split the page if we wanted to do that. But, as it stands, I don't think it is worth splitting, since much of the types of research are intertwined, especially when it comes to the regulation of the research. Nrets 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Animal research" is ambiguous, so I'd be opposed to that. "Animal testing" is understood by everyone, including the average reader, which is who this article is aimed at. No matter what the tests are, substances or theories are being tested on animals before being used, put into practise, or developed further.

LZ, what would the higher level subject be? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is not understood by everyone. My first impression upon reading this article was that it was about cosmetic and toxicological testing, not scientific research. And I think many other editors have commented the same in this page. If you would like I can dig out all the examples. It seems like the editors who are mainly opposed to changing the name are the ones who tend to support the anti-animal research POV. Again, it may be a British vs. American usage issue, but RP is also in the UK and seems to agree with using a different term. Nrets 02:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well my point is more that the term 'animal research' is used to define a subject that covers things such as watching animals in the wild etc... whereas animal experimentation/testing is more specific to actual laboratory testing (my mention of 'invasive' was just poor choice of words). As the article stands it is too long and we are constantly having arguments with regards to the name - and if you look back you can see that people complained that the term 'animal testing' didn't cover enough.

My proposal is simply that the parts about laboratory type experiments remain under the heading 'animal testing' and a more all encompassing article be created for the rest and the animal testing one being a subpage.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you say you engage in animal testing in the USA, people immediately assume you do toxicological tests on animals. The term is completely misunderstood by the majority of english speaking readers of the page, which alone I would feel warrants changing it. The first five words make it clear than animal research is interchangeable, why not move it? --Animalresearcher 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Google gets around the same number of hits for either term; nearly 1.5 million for animal research and nearly 1.6 million for animal testing. Given the numbers, there's no reason to change a long-standing title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That argument is a classic misdirect. You've simply avoided the issue by bringing up a point that is not related. We are not talking about choosing between two different titles because of their popularity irrespective of meaning. We are talking about choosing between two different titles BECAUSE they have different meanings. The population of the USA is 300 million, UK is 60 million, so the title is misleading to five times more english speakers than those to whom it is appropriate. However, people on both sides of the pond use the term "animal experiments" to refer to exactly the same thing. Wouldn't that be wonderful if we could choose something appropriately titled for both UK and USA readers? --Animalresearcher 11:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, we have a redirect under laboratory animal. Wouldn't it make more sense to move the detailed section about animals (numbers, type etc) there instead of a redirect? Rockpocket 02:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] intro proposals

Request permission for the following:

1) Caption to Enos pic - maintain correct grammar around "insertion"

2) Replace "non-human animal" with "animal" (Understood. See Animal)

3) Replace "purpose bred" with "bred specifically for research purposes" (purpose bred is jargon)

4) Replace "Opponents of animal testing strongly oppose" with "Opponents of animal testing want to reduce or abolish the practice" (please look carefully at how uninformative and redundant the first sentence is. If you have a better idea, let's hear it but no more reverts.)

5) Change "that it is bad science" to "scientifically unnecessary". (for word economy and because "bad science" is jargon)

6) Clean up paragraph about FBR, and remove awkward brackets "[a]nimal". The statement is sourced and correct. The encyclopedia is full of factual statements and footnotes are usually sufficient. Haber 02:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: 5. They don't only say it's unnecessary. They also say it is bad science. Separate points. Re: 6. [a]nimal isn't awkward; it is standard and you shouldn't change quotes. The paragraph doesn't need clean up. It needs to be fully attributed to FBR, or whatever the source is, and you keep removing the attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you ok with 1-4? Haber 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what 1 means, but I'm fine with it in principle. Go ahead and make the change. 2, I'd prefer non-human, but I'll go along with animal. 3, I prefer the shorter phrase, but again I'll go along with the longer one. 4, I prefer to keep "strongly oppose," and I know of no opponents who merely want to reduce. They strongly oppose the practise, they strongly oppose any of the arguments in favor of the practise, and they want to see it abolished entirely, to the best of my knowledge. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Haber's point is that it is redundant to say that "opponents strongly oppose". Nrets 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Sorry, I missed that; it was a remnant of "opponents strongly contest these views," until we removed the views. I've fixed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

4 looks good, though I can't resist noting that not all opponents want animal research abolished entirely. Peter Singer is an example. Haber 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposed changes, especially 4. As far as 5 goes, how about saying "poor scientific practice" as opposed to "bad science" which, I agree, is jargon. Although the argument never did make sense to me, since they claim animal models are too different from humans to be useful, but then propose alternatives like cultured cell lines and computer models. Nrets 03:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim animals aren't similar enough to us to have our moral rights, but somehow are similar enough to use in experiments. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Except I don't think our moral rights are a product of our genes... Nrets 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In a sense you do. The beings with human genes are allowed to have moral rights, in your view. Others not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely true, as mice with human transgenes don't suddenly obtain an elevated moral status ;) Rockpocket 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Only because they haven't yet been liberated. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The page was very long so I archived, but some of the posts were quite recent (though I think dealt with); feel free to undo in whole or in part. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Edit

(copied from SV talk page) Not all animals used in scientific procedures are killed. Almost all that are killed are euthanized. By law specific exceptions must be made not to euthanized animals in scientific procedures, and this portion of animal welfare law is particularly inflexible. Yet you insist on putting the words killed and not euthanized in the introduction to animal testing, reverting changes from euthanized to killed. As a matter of fact, there is no official count of animal deaths in testing in the USA, as only animals used are tracked. I don't see the content suffers either from removing it or from changing it from killed to euthanized, and insisting using your editorial position at wikipedia on including it and insisting on using the word killed is POV, you might as well change it to brutally murdered. --Animalresearcher 11:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear example of POV editing. Animalresearcher has strongly argued at PETA that PETA killed, not euthanized, animals in its care whose bodies were found to have been disposed of in a local dumpster, which attracted criminal charges againt the employees who put them there. Yet here, he argues that we must use the word "euthanized."

The phrase is not "euthanized" or "brutually murdered" or "done to death" or "sent to the other side" or "shown mercy" or "cruelly disposed of." The word is "killed," plain and simple. The reasons they are killed are many and varied; and different sides of the debate disagree as to whether it was necessary or how much "mercy" was shown. To use the phrase "euthanized" suggests it was for the animals' own good, and that it was necessary.

As for the figures, all show that the numbers used and numbers killed are almost the same. Very few animals are re-used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I used the term killed to refer to one specific instance in which the animals were illegally killed, and the people who performed the killing were not certified to perform the procedure in the state in which they did it, and had no veterinary training. The PETA page still refers to the "euthanasia" performed by PETA veterinarians at their shelter, which is an instance in which people WITH appropriate veterinary training performed legal euthanasia, and we are assured there is a reasonable control on the ending of life being done in the most humane way possible. The PETA employees who were indicted are indicted on multiple counts of "animal cruelty" associated with their death spree. The term, in that instance, is not being used in a POV way, I argued that multiple major news sources refered to the instance as "killing" while still refering to the actions taken by veterinarians at PETA's shelter as "euthanasia". This consistency is not being transferred to this page, If we take the same arguments over to the PETA page, we can simply change EVERY instance of "euthanasia" to "killing", which would of course be ludicrous. I ask, merely, for the words "and subsequently killed" on the first lines to be changes to "and subsequently euthanized". Regulation over the ending of animal life in experimentation is extremely tightly controlled, with very little tolerance for error. Of course, if scientific merit depends on not using humane euthanasia, it would not need to be used, --Animalresearcher 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Just sniping here, but the above claim: "Regulation over the ending of animal life in experimentation is extremely tightly controlled, with very little tolerance for error" is more a claim of tenent than a claim of fact. According to the USDA IG's office's most recent audit of APHIS, oversight of animal research in the US is rife with problems. In light of evidence to the contrary (like the recently disclosed long-term problems at CDC), claims that anything occurring in the animal labs is tightly controlled is misleading or ignorant. Taking AR at his or her word, it is entirely possible that the shouted claim: BUT I AM UNAWARE IN SEVERAL DECADES OF PERFORMING ANIMAL RESEARCH OF THIS EVER HAPPENING could be true. I've run into a number of cases of researchers having no idea what was going on just down the hall. We are currently investigating the deaths of sheep in decompression experiments. I suspect that most researchers at the institution have no idea that this is going on. Their ignorance is not evidence that all is well.Rbogle 00:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AR, the PETA case has not come to court, so you can't possibly know what happened. Similarly, your claim that "Regulation over the ending of animal life in experimentation is extremely tightly controlled, with very little tolerance for error" is a POV, and many would argue an absurd and demonstrably false claim. Your claims about "BUT I AM UNAWARE IN SEVERAL DECADES OF PERFORMING ANIMAL RESEARCH OF THIS EVER HAPPENING," is another POV, and we have no idea who you are. Please stop adding your own views to articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The arguments on the terminology on the PETA case exist in detail on the PETA discussion page. The real point of contention was that multiple major news sources carefully referred to the actions of the two PETA employees as "killing", while also mentioning that PETA euthanizes animals at its shelter.The subjects are indicted on dozens of counts of animal cruelty, specifically for their killing of the animals they had taken from the shelters. By law in the USA and UK, any killing of animals involved in experiments must be performed with euthanasia methods consistent with the AVMA standards. As I pointed out, the PETA page repeatedly refers to what their veterinarians do at their shelters as euthanasia, the term killing is used instead only for that one specific instance, and that instance is justified by consistency with multiple major news sources. Can you find ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that animals used in experiments are commonly killed in ways not conforming to euthanasia standards? --Animalresearcher 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow the PETA article, so am somewhat out of the loop, but I don't really have a huge problem with "killing" as long as it is evenly applied. "Euthanasia" means "good death" in Greek, so is something of a judgement. Animals are killed by cars, killed in slaughterhouses, killed by habitat destruction etc. It's a part of life. If it's done in the right way most people call it euthanasia. PETA shouldn't pretend, though, that they're the only people in the world capable of killing the right way. Haber 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought euthanasia refers to a regulated way of killing such that it avoided unnescessary suffering. I think in the context of animal testing, it is proper to use euthanasia rather than 'killed" since it is a lot more specific. Killed, could mean anything, euthanasia simplies that it is a regulated procedure, done according to guidelines and laws. So unless somebody is actually breaking the law by not following the established guidelines and protocols (which may happen but there is little evidence that this is the norm, despite SV's view), the correct ther is euthanized. Nrets 02:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with relying solely on legal context. In the U.S., 2000 AVMA defines euthanasia. Thinking internationally, are you sure you feel comfortable saying that an animal that is killed by a non-AVMA approved method is being "euthanized", as long as it is being killed in compliance with local laws? Maybe we should just say nothing at all as was suggested. Haber 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's a valid point, since the sentence does say "worldwide". In countries where there is little or no regulation we have no idea how research animals are killed. Maybe we can add something about contry-sepcific regulations in the different country sections? Nrets 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Un-indent. Euthanasia, for animals, requires use of the most humane methods possible. Collectively, veterinarians agree it should begin with loss of consciousness as quickly as possible, and consciousness should not be regained. For the methodology of PETA, it means the animal is sedated with ketamine, infused with pentobarbital until death if verified or assured. The last part is the tricky part, no agency in the USA will accept that anyone without specific veterinary training can apply euthanasia because it requires verification of death. The two PETA employees had no veterinary training, and had no specific training recognized by the state of North Carolina. They are charged with DOZENS of counts of animal cruelty as a result. Throughout the PETA page, the term "euthanasia" is used ubiquitously to refer to the procedures applied by veterinarians at their shelther. However, it is inappropriate to use the same term to refer to what the two employees did that resulted in dozens of counts of animal cruelty. There are multiple major news sources that agree with this specificity in use of the terms "killed" and "euthanized", and this is archived on the PETA discussion page. Following those same arguments, the words "subsequently killed" should be changed to "subsequently euthanized" in the first sentences. --Animalresearcher 13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate reversion of edit

In the section, the arguments in brief. there sits a section of text moved from the old intro on the statement from the House of Lords on the moral basis of testing. I substantially expanded that particular section, re-labbeled it "Official statements from representative bodies", and included quotes from the House of Lords and the US Congress on Animal testing. This section was fully cited, relevant, clearly verifiable, and reverted by SV, WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION. --Animalresearcher 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because I'm becoming concerned about your POV editing, and in particular your misuse of source material. The Newkirk/BUAV example was one that particularly worried me, as you made the source say exactly the opposite of what it said. That has caused a large good faith problem for me with your edits, to be honest. It seems that your sole purpose at Wikipedia is to attack animal rights positions, groups, and activists. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is wiki-speak for, "I have no good reason, but you're a liar." Haber 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

An edit is an edit. It was sourced, verifiable, and relevant.--Animalresearcher 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Newkirk edits and BUAV edits. The Newkirk edit I made said PETA opposed taking animal as pets, I was confused, it should have said "sales of pets from stores and breeders". As to the BUAV edits, they have provided material support to the ALF in Great Britain, and made the initial link that led to the founding of the ALF in the USA. That's a really substantial amount of material support to groups that exist solely for the purpose of direct action. If BUAV really opposed direct action they would not help the ALF. Those edits are also sourced and verifiable and relevant. --Animalresearcher 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to the reversion. The existing paragraph suitable provides explanation of the position for animal testing from an official body. Why do we need to expand an already oversized article with information that was already there but in a more succinct form? I would have reverted just as SV did.

Also, everyone here needs to stop talking about their personal experiences. It simply does not matter if you have been working in the industry for X years or whether you are just interested in the subject - all edits must comply with our policies.

Nrets, the problem with the BUAV edits is that the link that lead to the person becoming an activist was done via deception on the woman's part - BUAV thought she was doing research. To include that would give the subject undue weight as it is nothing to do with them. Second, the fact that the BUAV gave office space to the ALF many years ago does not mean that they support direct action and any inference that it does is original research.

Is office space in London free now? Or then? Is it not quantifiable in direct monetary terms ie: pounds per sq ft per month? Was or was not BUAV reported by Newkirk to be the link by which Valerie contacted ALF (and then went on to set up the American branch of ALF)? Again, for ALF this definitely constitutes direct support. They are a covert agency, not directly contactable. If BUAV did not support them, they would not put interested outside parties in contact with them. If the story is true as reported, at the minimum BUAV thought they were putting potential publicity into the ALF's hands, which is also quantifiable in direct monetary terms. --Animalresearcher 13:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come now, you are trying to infer that BUAV, by knowing how to contact someone from the ALF, were directly supporting them. That is nonsense. If I knew how to contact people and put someone in touch with them because they wanted to do some research would I be a supporter of their actions? No.

With the office space, I have again stated that this is immaterial to the article - it is a single incident from many years ago which is being given undue weight.

Please stop trying to infer a link without providing a source stating that they support direct action.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We have their marketing agenda, which states they do not support direct action. We have their actions, which say they have provided direct support in several instances to the ALF. Both are relevant. If they were staunchly opposed to groups that undertake direct action, they would not have given the ALF office space and put Valerie in contact with the ALF. Even the action of putting a reporter in contact with the ALF cannot be thought to be other than helping the ALF. --Animalresearcher 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry AR but putting someone in touch with a member of the ALF for research is not 'supporting' them - you may think it is but that is irrelevant and your opinion. With regards to the office space, can you provide me with a method of including that information into that article without any original research.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The page in question is animal liberation movement, methods section. It does not state "direct support". It states there is evidence of "cooperation" between BUAV and ALF, and specifically mentions those two examples. When a group takes a hard stance against direct action (like BUAV and HSUS), the relationships they maintain with groups that do take direct action are relevant. Things like PETA paying Coronado's legal fees, and HSUS hiring JP Goodwin, and BUAV connecting Valerie with the ALF, all speak to the issue of how these organizations act with regards to groups conducting direct action. --Animalresearcher 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and/or Localzuk, please complete the following sentence: The section "Official statements from representative bodies" was deleted because ______. Haber 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distortion of source material

What you did, Animal researcher, was add to Animal liberation movement that "There is ample evidence of co-operativity [sic] between groups like BUAV and groups that destroy property like ALF. For example, while Ronnie Lee was in prison, BUAV donated office space for the use of ALF in Britain." [1] You used Ingrid Newkirk's book Free the Animals as a source. You also added "BUAV executives have connected prospective ALF activists with Ronnie Lee who connected them to activist cells," [2] again using Newkirk as a source. I told you you must have misunderstood Newkirk, and asked which page you were taking it from. You admitted you hadn't looked at Newkirk's book, but had taken the information from material I had added to Ronnie Lee, which told the story of "Valerie", a woman who, in or around 1981, pretended to be a journalist looking for Ronnie Lee, the founder of the ALF, in order to interview him. In fact, she wanted to become an ALF activist. Believing she was a writer, a BUAV executive showed her where to find Ronnie Lee, who was being allowed to use an office in the BUAV building. That was it.

Out of that, you built that "there is ample evidence of co-operativity [sic] between groups like BUAV and groups that destroy property like ALF." You wrote "for example" when you wrote that a BUAV exec had introduced Valerie to Lee. That was one example of the "ample evidence of co-operativity [sic]". What were the other examples? You also wrote "BUAV executives [plural] have connected prospective ALF activists [plural] with Ronnie Lee." Who were the other executives? Who were the other activists?

It happens to be correct that the BUAV supported the ALF with free office space and some other resources until 1984, when the ALF was a much less violent group. That same BUAV executive has since written that he believes illegal direct action to be harmful. But you don't know that history and you haven't read the literature. You based that entire edit on one woman who said she was a writer being introduced to Ronnie Lee by BUAV. POV is one thing; distortion is something else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The incidents in question occurred in the early 80s, at a time at which there was apparently quite a lot of cooperation between the ALF and BUAV. Kim Stallwood speaks about the break away from ALF by BUAV later in the 80s in Steve Best's book "Terrorists of Freedom Fighters". I'd suggest introducing a section from that book to clarify BUAV's more recent stance towards groups carrying out direct action. BUAV also hosted a debate on "How to stop AR extremism" at the Labor Party Conference. There may be citable materials from that as well. I'd introduce the material from Best's book myself except that I do not pay for materials from AR activists on principle. --Animalresearcher 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You could order these books from libraries, then you wouldn't have to buy them.

You didn't answer my questions. You gave one distorted example of the "ample evidence of co-operativity [sic]", but you said it was just one example. What were the others? You also wrote "BUAV executives [plural] have connected prospective ALF activists [plural] with Ronnie Lee." Who were the other executives? And who were the other activists? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Two examples. Use of office space, and acting as a communicative liason. The former would be plenty. Office space ain't cheap. But you have a golden opportunity to add more referenced material on the change in the attitude of BUAV towards ALF in the mid 80s. --Animalresearcher 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Who were the other executive? Who were the other activists? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so lets drop the 'putting in touch' one - as it is completely irrelevant. The office space - we need to look at why they gave space to Ronnie Lee. Was it in his role to do with the ALF or something else?-Localzuk^(talk) 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It was the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group that was being allowed to use office space. The BUAV executive has written elsewhere about his support for ALF activists in the early 80s, but Animalresearcher hasn't read that either, so he in fact he's not familiar with any of the material you'd have to read in order to write about this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is this quote from an internet BB "The BUAV have moderated in recent years - I used to be on their committe in 1982 when the ALF had an office in their building. Kim Stallwood tells the story of the BUAV-ALF split in the Steve Best edition, Terrorists or Freedom Fighters. Since the split - and the move toward economic sabotage - the BUAV's stance on militancy has grown more and more negative." I am also not in favor of dropping the "putting in touch" quote, nor am I in favor of discussing changes to another page in the "animal testing" discussion page. --Animalresearcher 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIV

Haber, I have asked you many times now, stop being confrontational. Your continued negative attitude towards editors on the site is not going to help anyone.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SV reverted solely "because I'm becoming concerned about your POV editing" and "you made the source say exactly the opposite of what it said. That has caused a large good faith problem for me with your edits" How much more confrontational can you get? All I'm saying is that if you're going to say nasty things without giving valid reasons for your obstructionism, then don't hide behind some "I" messages and silly buzzwords and pretend that you're filled with collaborative spirit. Also note that my insertion attempted to refocus on the issue, while yours was an attack on me for attempting to cut through the b.s. Let's get back to it. Is there any valid reason to blank the section on "Official statements from representative bodies", or are you two just going to keep shifting the topic and making personal attacks? Haber 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Haber, when we try and discuss things we all should abide by the rules whether you think they are a distraction or not. SV is perfectly right in what she has said as I am also wondering about the sudden increase in POV edits occurring on the animal rights/animal testing articles. However, as I have said - you have not given us any evidence to show that you are editing in good faith, coming into this discussion with a confrontational attitude and tone is not helping.

I have explained why the edit is a bad one, SV has explained why she reverted it. You simply came and had a dig at what SV said by saying she was just 'wiki-speaking'. You did not add anything to the discussion. So, again - unless you have something constructive to say in a civil manner, don't say anything. If you continue with incivility you will likely end up being blocked. (This is a civil warning, hoping that you will change your attitude and discuss things properly, not a threat.)-Localzuk^(talk) 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you intend to respond to the issues and stop trying to own this article through threats, unexplained reverts, and personal attacks, expect more "incivility". Haber 19:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I am afraid that you should expect to be blocked. We have been very patient with you, have provided explanations for our actions and do discuss the issues at hand (as you can see from the 6 pages of archives heavily filled with discussion from myself and SV and others) but you are unwilling to accept them.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We still have no answer on why the section "Official statements from representative bodies" was deleted. Now you're off yapping at some other guy about banners he tried to put up, that you reverted within one hour of their posting. Haber 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have said why I would remove it. And my conversations about banners for projects that are not relevant to pages is irrelevant - do not stalk me, following me around and commenting on my other edits is not on.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The banners were posted on this page, and the poster suggested that you were in violation of WP:OWN based on his observations. Seems relevant to me. Haber 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Haber, would you lay off, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, you don't want to explain your deletion. Very well. Haber 00:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate reversion of edit

In the section on the use of animals in Britain, it says "This includes inducing brain damage in order to research Parkinson's, studying visual and auditory functions, and cognitive research." Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function, so I changed the order of the statements to remove this potential ambiguity. SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true). Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's). --Animalresearcher 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop claiming to have personal knowledge of these issues. It makes no difference. We have no idea who you are, or what your qualifications are; and even if we did know, it would make no difference. All that matters is what reliable sources have published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that brain damage is induced to study cognition, visual and auditory functions, or do you simply insist on wording that sentence in a way to be specifically misleading and ambiguous? In this case, I think there was probably a small error on the part of whoever wrote that sentence which I corrected, and you reverted to be specifically misleading to be as negative as possible towards animal testing. As to my specific knowledge, it is somewhat different when you see something you know personally is a lie being put forth about your colleagues. --Animalresearcher 01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AR is generally correct regarding brain damage in studies concerning auditory function. The most common surgical intervention is ablation of the cochlea. But AR is not completely right. See for instance Deutscher A, Kurt S, Scheich H, Schulze H. Cortical and subcortical sides of auditory rhythms and pitches. Neuroreport. 2006 Jun 26;17(9):853-6. "Using auditory discrimination learning in bilaterally auditory cortex ablated animals, we demonstrate that the perceptual quality of sounds depends on the way the brain processes stimuli rather than on their physical nature."

AR is also incorrect regarding brain damage and vision research. See: Redlin U, Cooper HM, Mrosovsky N. Related Articles, Links Increased masking response to light after ablation of the visual cortex in mice. Brain Res. 2003 Mar 7;965(1-2):1-8.

AR is also incorrect regarding brain damage and cognition. See: Ridley RM, Baker HF, Mills DA, Green ME, Cummings RM. Topographical memory impairments after unilateral lesions of the anterior thalamus and contralateral inferotemporal cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(9):1178-91. "Monkeys with crossed unilateral excitotoxic lesions of the anterior thalamus and unilateral inferotemporal cortex ablation were severely impaired at learning two tasks which required the integration of information about the appearance of objects and their positions in space." Oddly, this was done at the Department of Experimental Psychology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK. Guess AR didn't visit that lab.

I personally think that having a knowledgeable researcher or two help with these pages would be a good thing. The problem is that very very few animal researchers have much breadth of knowledge of the specifics of this issue. When AR shouts about his/her own experiences, s/he may be telling the truth, but still be wrong as in the claims made above.Rbogle 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have edited a WP about brain damage inflicted on marmosets as part of research into cognition: the Cambridge experiments. I don't recall where the visual and auditory functions came from but I'll find a source and re-add it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, SV you claim to be such an expert on animal research, but please, show me citations to the exact studies you are refering to, before you start questioning other people's expertise and or knowledge. If you cite a source which misunderstands and then either purposefully or accidentally misrepresents the science, why is this a reliable source? You have done more to erode any good faith that I and probably other editors have in you in the last 24 hours. I am growing increasingly concerned with your POV edits and double standards. If you source something which fits your POV then its OK, if AR sources something you accuse his sourcing as biased. By the way, we have no idea who YOU are. Give it a rest. Nrets 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the U.S. Congress and British House of Lords are not reliable sources? Haber 01:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nret, I make no claims to have specialist knowledge about animal testing, so it doesn't matter who I am. All AR does is tell us how much he knows; that he's a member of this or that group; that he's been doing X for Y or decades/centuries; that he knows everything and everyone. First, he could be making it up. Second, true or false, it makes no difference. We go only by what published sources have said and AR is not one of them. Third, my contributions to animal rights related articles speak for themselves. I've regularly made edits from both POVs, but I have never seen you or AR make an edit from a pro- animal rights or an anti-animal testing POV. Not once. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SV, I'm fairly sure that there is enough scientific expertise here between RP, AR and me here to evaluate the accuracy of a potentially biased source. Here's a proposal, what if we take a look at the original BUAV source regarding brain injuries, and try and acheive a consensus whether it represents a misreading or misrepresentation of the scientific literature. This would help determine whether the source really is accurate or biased. Then we can discuss whether we should accept this source as reliable or not, and then change the phrasing accordingly. I know you will say this borders on OR, but there has to be a mechanism on WP to permit evaluation of the quality of the sources, and this is a good instance for WP:IGNORE. This won't mean that if this source turns out to be biased, anything from BUAV is automatically out, only in this particular instance will the decision be applied. Let me know what you think. Now, as far as you editing from "both sides of the aisle", I'm not sure I really buy into this. I've been working with you (or against you) for a bit now and what I have observed is that your edits from the "other side" mainly involve softening pro-animal research edits made by other editors to make them somewhat less compelling. This doesn't count. In all fairness, it could be that most of your pro-animal research edits were done before I got involved in this article, and now you are just reacting to recent edits. Anyway, let me know what you think about my proposal to evaluate the source. Nrets 04:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue of evaluating individual sources is tricky, Nrets. We're supposed to trust sources who are widely regarded by others are reliable. If we start picking and choosing, we get into the difficult area of some reliable sources being ditched because some editors don't like what they say. There's also the question of not knowing the editors who are doing the evaluating. Because we're all anonymous, none of us knows where the others' expertise lies; and even if we did, it would make no difference, because experts are often wrong and/or other experts disagree.

On the issue of POV, I can assure you that, if you look at my AR contributions overall, you'll see that I've edited from both POVs. You're also right that the editing on this page has caused an action-reaction process to set in, to the great detriment of the article, which is practically unreadable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Its debatable what sources are widely regarded. BUAV and PETA, for example are not widely regarded by most scientists, even those not involved in animal research. We're not picking and choosing, we're simply evaluating. So if BUAV says such and such a study did this, we can look at such and such a study and verify that in fact they did that. The scientific expertise comes in handy not to directly evaluate the source (you, SV, can evaluate the source too), but simply to explain some of the jargon that is likely to be found in the primary sources. This is done in scientific articles in WP all the time, where primary literature is used as sources, so it wouldn't be that unusual. So we wouldn't ditch anything because some editors don't like it, but rather because the source is factually inaccurate. Nrets 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly think of experiments which have caused brain damage to investigate vision, audition and cognition, particularly cognition where lesion studies are widespread. --Coroebus 11:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SV already mentioned the Cambridge cognition expts, here is a vision lesion study, and here is an auditory study. Let's not pretend. --Coroebus 11:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Those two examples did not occur within thousands of miles of the UK. But this is referenced from a BUAV source and was initially written ambiguously so that it was unclear if bran damage was induced in all studies, or just studies of Parkinsons. The appropriate thing to do is to go check the source and see what it said. Which I just did, and it reinforces my point. The report, page 37 of the PDF, mentions brain damage for studies of Parkinson's, and unambiguously does not mention it for visual, auditory, and cognitive studies. --Animalresearcher 13:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Ridley RM, Baker HF, Mills DA, Green ME, Cummings RM. Topographical memory impairments after unilateral lesions of the anterior thalamus and contralateral inferotemporal cortex. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(9):1178-91. "Monkeys with crossed unilateral excitotoxic lesions of the anterior thalamus and unilateral inferotemporal cortex ablation were severely impaired at learning two tasks which required the integration of information about the appearance of objects and their positions in space." Oddly, this was done at the Department of Experimental Psychology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.(Couldn't resist...) Rbogle 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You made a claim that lesion studies of vision and audition are not carried out. You are wrong. I didn't realise that you were making a UK specific claim because that would be bizarre, but you are still wrong. Sufficiently wrong that I am surprised you even made the claim if you are familiar with UK animal research. --Coroebus 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference was cited in an ambiguous manner. I corrected it to be consistent with the reference and unambiguous. The reference referred to currently approved primate experiments in the UK. --Animalresearcher 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote above: "Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function ... Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's) ... Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that brain damage is induced to study cognition, visual and auditory functions, or do you simply insist on wording that sentence in a way to be specifically misleading and ambiguous?"

You were saying that brain damage is not induced for studies of visual and auditory function, or cognition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference was cited in an ambiguous manner. I corrected it to be consistent with the reference and unambiguous. The reference referred to currently approved primate experiments in the UK. I certainly did not mean to intend that no one had ever caused brain damage to study visual or auditory or cognitive function - that is incorrect. --Animalresearcher 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what did you mean by "I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function" and "Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function." and "Do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that brain damage is induced to study cognition, visual and auditory functions ..."? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unindent. You had reverted an edit for some reason. The edit made the text consistent with its reference. I was asking if there was any evidence in the reference that your reversion was warranted. Here is the text, page 37, from the reference. "The scientific literature reveals that some of these experiments involve brain-damaging marmosets with the intention of studying human Parkinson's disease. Others include research into visual and auditory functions, fundamental cognitive research, and marmoset 'models' of human multiple sclerosis. Fewer such experiments involve macaques, although they are subjected to Parkinson's disease research in some British laboratories." The text from the page that referred to this section was ambiguous about whether brain damage was induced just for studies of Parkinson's or for all the categories of studies. I made this unambiguous, and I fail to see why you reverted this change when it seem ridiculously straightforward and takes all of 30 seconds to check. I generally had the impression that those anointed with editor powers in Wikipedia did not act out of grudges or revert changes for reasons not consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Animalresearcher 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're avoiding answering the questions. I'll leave it for others to decide why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Those questions are moot wrt the editing process. The point that UK scientists currently do not perform brain lesions in primates in auditory studies...the lab that performed lesions in visual studies in primates now uses reversible chemical lesions, as do most other people studying the contributions of brain areas to normal function (if they study the area by removing it from the system at all, which most do not). Further, there are really few auditory and visual physiologists using primates in the UK AT ALL (and rather a decent complement in other areas). The most high profile cognitive neuroscience lab in Britain doesn't do lesion studies, either. But there are studies that partially destroy or remove sections of the brain to create a model of human dysfunction in stroke and Parkinson's. In retrospect, the FIRST point I should have brought up was consistency to the reference and avoided all the other crud I brought in. However, I still maintain that reversion was inappropriate and uncalled for and spoke of a failure of WP:AGF on your part, SV, you assumed the edit was bad because I made it and not because of anything related to content, and you did the same with two other edits I made on the same day (a threesome!) . --Animalresearcher 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it wasn't clear that the section you were referring to was about primate work, so you're right that auditory research in monkeys is uncommon, especially lesions studies, but it is disingenuous to pretend that lesion studies are not a fairly integral part of the neuroscientist's armoury - particularly in cognitive work, e.g. a couple from this year here and here. --Coroebus 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want your edits to be trusted, become a trustworthy editor. There are other pro-testing editors whose work I don't even have to look at, because I know it'll be good even if I disagree with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am keeping a running scorecard on all this. Three times this week I made good edits, that were eventually kept in their entirety, that FOR SOME REASON required thousands of words of explanation on the discussion page to a WIKIPEDIA editor who reverted the changes because I made them and not because of consideration of content or any WIKIPEDIA policy. --Animalresearcher 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SV and LZ, lay off a bit, here. The source does say that lesion studies were done to study Parkinson's. In a different sentence it states that in OTHER studies primates are used to study vision, audition and cognition and nowhere it says explicity or even implicitly that lesions are used for these studies. This is regardless of whether anyone has ever produced a brain lesion to study vision. I think that these (and Haber's) are such small edits that I feel that you are reverting them because of who made them, not because their content, and I think that is why this discussion is getting so out of hand. Nrets 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Further arguments with AR on my talk page if anyone's interested: User_talk:Coroebus#Tag_on_your_edit_at_Animal_Testing. --Coroebus 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied below)

[edit] From Coroebus talk page

Your edit on animal testing included a mention of inserting electrodes into the brain for studies of vision. This is referenced (in Next of Kin) as a technique sampled from the entire world of visual studies, and not from the UK. The paragraph, and referral in the text, discuss primate experiments in the UK. Please add a reference to the use of inserted electrodes for UK studies of vision, auditory, and cognitive studies, or redact the referral to "inserting electrodes into the brain", which clearly did not come from the same reference already listed. Or, if it is there and I missed it, please add a page number. --Animalresearcher 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, you know that electrodes (i.e. single unit recording) are widely used for neuroscientific research, especially in vision (e.g. here) so I am just clarifying what sort of things are meant by neuroscientific research into vision, cognition etc... It may not be covered by the reference, but then no one else is disputing that this is what it entails. I also wanted to mention optical imaging but couldn't quite figure out how to phrase it - if you think that other practices are more representative then add them in too - don't be disingenuous by insisting on a reference for something you should know is the case if you are, as you claim, familiar with what goes on in animal research. --Coroebus 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

here's some more electrodes stimulating and recording in the UK. I don't want to add in references since it would clog up the article and doesn't need citations unless someone awkward comes along to dispute it. --Coroebus 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The first reference comes from the National Eye Institute, in Bethesda, MD. The second comes from studies of Parkinson's, in which chemical lesions are followed by deep brain stimulation. But there are still not references for insertion of electrodes into the brain for studies of visual, auditory, or cognitive studies. The electrode usage in Parkinson's studies is identical to the human surgical preparation applied in thousands of humans yearly. The MPTP model was developed because humans mistakenly took MPTP (they thought it was ecstasy). But both the chemical lesion and the treatment in Asiz's study directly follow human voluntary efforts. The visual study was simply not conducted in the UK. --Animalresearcher 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, if you actually read the second study, you will find it was conducted in the UK ("Animals and training. For monkeys Hg and Rb, all procedures were performed in accordance with the United Kingdom Home Office regulations on animal experimentation" - look at the authors!), the other study is indeed in a Parkinsonian model, what is your point? It establishes that electrode studies are indeed carried out in the UK (in this case in Parkinson's research, which is one of the area the sentence "This includes neuroscientific study of the visual and auditory systems, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's [62], involving techniques such as recording from electrodes inserted into the brain or temporary or permanent damage to areas of tissue." refers to (although I just talk about recording in that, just thought a stimulating one would show the variety of electrode studies). I don't understand your irrelevant waffle about how electrode preps in humans and monkeys are similar, like I give a friggin rat's arse, what do you think I am, some starry eyed ALF activist? I'm in favour of animal research, I'm just opposed to your clumsy revisionism. --Coroebus 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The recording occurs from microelectrodes, and not electrodes inserted into the brain. The deep brain stimulation uses electrodes. This terminology is consistent with your references, but not consistent with the unattributed text you added. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear god. Please tell me you know that a microelectrode is a type of electrode! --Coroebus 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See table 9 of last year's figures here, 100 monkeys had interference with the brain. A not insignificant number. --Coroebus 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced. And still is. It should not be hard for you to understand the need to back up edits you add to Wikipedia with verifiable references. --Animalresearcher 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I regard that as tendentious - I do not think a citation is necessary, I have already established that the statement is true, if you think a citation is necessary then feel free to add one or all of the references I have provided. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you feel like adding edits to wikipedia for content in a highly controversial article do not require citation from you. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE#Tagging_unsourced_material says "To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material: If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time." but you say above "I was not disputing the truth of the statement, rather that it was unreferenced" i.e. you want citations purely for citations sake, not because the material is "doubtful". i.e. you are tendentiously editing and trying to prove some kind of WP:POINT. I would add citations in if I thought anyone realistically disagreed that electrode recordings and lesion studies are carried out in neuroscience studies of vision, cognition or disease models. The only objection has been yours, which isn't an objection to the veracity at all. If you absolutely must have citations for every sentence in the article, put them in yourself, there are plenty, and I've provided you with some. Your edits to the article as a whole annoy me because it looks like you are trying to downplay what you regard as less palatable aspects of animal research, in order to win some kind of propaganda war over animal research - whereas I am here to accurately report what happens in animal research, to allow people to make up their own minds. This just seems like one more example of that, particularly when I see you saying things like "Now, I know specifically that brain damage is only induced for studies of Parkinson's and not for studies of visual and auditory function, so I changed the order of the statements to remove this potential ambiguity. SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true). Brain damage is also, BTW, induced for studies of stroke. But not for studies of auditory and visual function. I know personally and have visited the labs of most of the British auditory and visual physiologists (as well as some of those studying Parkinson's)." which I have demonstrated to be false (and I only know and have visited some of the labs). --Coroebus 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"SV also reverted this edit, apparently believing that studies of vision require brain damage in primates (which is DEFINITELY not true)." Just to clarify: I don't believe these studies require it, simply that it has been done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Microelectrodes are inserted into the brain to record, not electrodes. There is at least a ten-fold difference in size, which speaks directly to the controversial issue of potential pain and suffering. A microelectrodes is typically 0.1 mm at its widest, electrodes 1 mm wide or wider. And the reference still associates UK auditory primate studies with insertion of electrodes or brain damage, neither of which is true because there are not any UK auditory primate studies. So, yes, I am questioning the validity of your edit on multiple grounds. --Animalresearcher 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, while we are at it, if you could find ANY SINGLE REFERENCE on either brain lesions or microelectrode studies of the auditory system in primates in the UK I would appreciate it. I feel there MUST be an auditory primate physiology community in the UK, but I cannot put my finger on it. --Animalresearcher 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not my field, the auditory groups I know use other species (e.g. ferrets), in fact I'm not familiar with any auditory work in primates. The next of kin 'report' cites a review by Andy King on research that wasn't actually carried out in the UK so they may just be confused. --Coroebus 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

King uses ferrets currently. There is also auditory guinea pig and rodent work. But not primates. Since there are not auditory studies that use primates in the UK, perhaps that should be removed. --Animalresearcher 09:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection from me, like I say, looks like they mistook his review for the original study. --Coroebus 13:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the version before you altered it. If you want to mention methods I have no objection as long as it is cited and verifiable. As I already pointed out, the lack of primate auditory studies in the UK already casts doubt on the validity of the Next of Kin report as a source. This highlights the issue. The edits need to be verifiably referenced. I do not think you will have any problem finding citations for the use of microelectrodes in visual or cognitive studies, or brain damage being induced for studies of Parkinson's (this one is actually already in the Next of Kin report). But please do not introduce something because you think it is true without a verifiable reference. --Animalresearcher 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand about AR's edits is that they suggest AR doesn't support animal testing himself. He can only support a diluted, whitewashed version, where is no pain, the legislation is wonderful, the animals are happy, and much of the research is done to benefit the animals themselves. Surely, if you truly support something, you support the thing unadorned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necessity to support edits with citation

The following text

This includes studying visual and auditory functions, cognitive research, and chemically inducing brain damage in order to research Parkinson's. [62]

was altered to this

This includes neuroscientific study of the visual and auditory systems, cognition, and diseases such as Parkinson's [62], involving techniques such as recording from electrodes inserted into the brain or temporary or permanent damage to areas of tissue.

I added a fact tag, because reference number 62 did not support the use of recording electrodes being inserted into the brain in UK primate studies. Instead, it made a broad assessment of studies worldwide and techniques used in visual, auditory, or cognitive studies. I therefore viewed the edit as requiring citation. Coroebus deleted the fact tag without supplying a citation in the article. I reverted the sentence to the version consistent with reference [62]. Coroebus un-reverted it. In discussion on Coroebus' talk page, he supported the use of electrodes with personal knowledge, and even a Pubmed citation, but refused to add such a citation to the article. I further pointed out that there are in fact not primates in use in the UK in auditory studies (but there are in visual and cognitive), but that is all irrelevant to the article which must support its edits with verifiable references. Which bring me to the discussion page for consideration of others on how to get someone to add citations to their edits without being nasty and simply entering a reversion war. --Animalresearcher 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The other problem with the edit is the microelectrodes are inserted into the brain for studies of cognition and vision in UK primate studies, not electrodes. There is at least a 10-fold difference in size which speaks directly to the controversial issues relating to potential pain and suffering when you compare inserting something more than 1 mm wide into the brain, and when you insert something 0.1 mm wide into the brain. What's more, the references Coroebus' provided on the user talk page similarly referred to the use of microelectrodes, and noted that there are not any UK primate auditory studies that either insert electrodes into the brain or cause brain damage (because there are not any UK primate auditory physiologists). At a bare minimum the word auditory should be removed, and the word electrodes should be changed to microelectrodes --Animalresearcher 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't imagine there'd be a difference in the pain provoked by a microelectrode (a type of electrode) and a larger electrode inserted into the brain. 10pts for the first person who can tell AR why. --Coroebus 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference, in that the dura mater has pain receptors, and piercing it causes a behavioral reaction. Somewhat akin to a pin prick. Unless the pin is 10 times wider. Animal welfare critics are pushing neuroscientists to consider alternative methods or analgesics for this reason, which is again something people who are actually familiar with these processes understand quite well. In any case, I find the current edit acceptable --Animalresearcher 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The dura mater only has sparse pain receptors (associated with blood vessels) and in those situations where an electride is advanced through the dura without local anaesthetic there is rarely a reaction (I can't say about whether it is like a pin-prick, never having had anything stuck through mine) - so it is hardly a major issue of pain and suffering! --Coroebus 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Re this edit by SlimVirgin, obviously I have no objection to "For">"for" but I find the "animal research">"animal testing" reversion, with the justification "the article calls it animal testing, not animal research" pretty odd when the first line says "Animal testing, or animal research, refers to...". Now many of us would rather the article was called "animal research" but to insist that only "animal testing" can be used in the body of the article is ridiculous. --Coroebus 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change it back. I'm just concerned about the way that organization is being written about. See the article, which tries to give the impression that animal testing mostly benefits other animals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I've just added a number of categories which I hope will help get some more scientists interested in this article. If anyone objects please list your disagreements here. Haber 05:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article actualy about?

It starts off:

"Animal testing, or animal research, refers to the use of animals in experiments. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million animals worldwide — from fruit flies and mice to non-human primates — are used annually and subsequently euthanized."

1. Humans are animals. Should "non-human" be added to the definition?
2. The article is laregly about mammals. Either most the content should be moved to an article titled something like "Non-human mammal research" or the article as in must be labeled as biased and unrepresentative.
3. Do single cell animals count?
4. One could do a whole article on Planarium experiments alone.
5. Do experiments performed by students to teach the students (rather than for new research) count?
6. Do experiments in which a surgeon hones his skills count? If a new surgical procedure is being tested?
7. Do amateur experiments count?
8. How about industrial farming practices that are experimental such as H5N1 vaccine use in poultry?
9. Does the experiment have to be negative to count as an experiment? Invasive? Psychological animal experiments? Experimenting with new dog training techniques? Does it matter if the method is medically invasive or not?

WAS 4.250 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All excellent questions. The page is too long and so the scope is something we have to discuss in order to start splitting it up. The difficult lies in ensuring that each subpage will be NPOV, and that pages aren't split off for the purpose of hiding criticism, heaven forfend.

As for your first point, it was non-human animal until a few days ago, but there was an objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

1. Well it was at one point, someone removed it for some reason. Nevertheless, you can make a good case that "animal" is often used to mean "non-human animal" (e.g. that will be one of the definitions in a dictionary)
2. The article does not have to be "representative" in the sense you intend, it points out that most studies are on invertebrates, but most interest (from the public, government, and animal rights groups) is in vertebrates, particularly mammals, and especially primates - hence the focus.
3. we could argue about single cell animals (scientific vs. lay classification of animals) but why bother? You really want to insert smething about the myxozoa?
4. One could, but not many people would read it.
5. I'm not sure, I would think so - you want to add a section, got any sources?
6. Yes, if testing a new procedure, a surgeon just hacking something up for practice I'd say yes too (unaware of how prevalent this might be, certainly not found in the UK) but others might disagree.
7. Yes.
8. I would say that as long as the farming practice is part of an experiment it is animal research - once it becomes primarily done as an industrial process it is farming (cf. veterinary research).
9. Negative? I don't understand the question. Doesn't have to be invasive although there is probably an unclear line at the border with ecological research, psychological experiments obviously count, whether dog trainers technically count I'm not 100% sure, but again, why make an issue of it, do you have any relevant sources on the practice? --Coroebus 23:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally made the change in 1). Non-human animal is understood. As in, Animal rights, Animal testing, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Welfare Act, I like animals, Animal-friendly, etc. The meaning of "animal" is precisely defined in the US govt. regulations, but my impression (and I heard this from a famous anti-testing person) is that most antis are concerned about species shrimp and above. Bible-thumpers might take serious issue with including humans. Of course I agree in principle with the scientific definition, as the anatomic similarities between mammals are enough for me, but with lay people I don't go around referring to a dog walker and a bunch of dogs as a group of animals, or a natural sponge as an animal. As for your other points I encourage you to explore the article and the links, and try making a few edits if you think they'll improve the article. Haber 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that humans are animals is at the heart of animal experimentation that is done to better understand humans. The use of the word "animal" to mean "nonhuman animal" both creates a bias in artificially distinguishing one species from others (which is unacceptable in a scientific context such as this article) and serves to obscure and make unconcious that bias and various presumptions that are at the heart of cotroversies about the subject of this article. It would be like writing about Israel using the word "Jew" to mean Israeli citizen, in that clearity is essential to any true understanding of the situation. As someone once said, "Calling things by their right name is the beginning of wisdom" (or was it "knowledge"?). WAS 4.250 17:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but science's use of words doesn't get to define the meaning of words outside of a scientific context - and that includes in general encyclopedias. Common usage and dictionary definition state (here the OED) "2. In common usage: one of the lower animals; a brute, or beast, as distinguished from man", and it is that common usage that is found in "animal research" or "animal testing". --Coroebus 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, so maybe we can change the article title to "Brute Testing" ? Nrets 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Break off pieces

I suggest we agree to break off pieces of this article. See Frogs in research and Non-human primate experiments. WAS 4.250 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been agreed in principle. It's how to do it that's the issue. I've started doing it with the abuse section, but haven't yet edited that down, and I won't until I know what's staying in the sub-article. I think another obvious page would be the alternatives to animal testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved that section into its own article, Alternatives to animal testing. I'm assuming this won't be controversial, as it seems to be an obvious division. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, since you seem to be making progress in the general direction that also seems right to me; I'll hang back for now and let you make progress at a speed that works for you. WAS 4.250 06:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euthanasia

I've changed euthanasia back to killed, because there's no indication that it's mercy killing. The animals are killed as a matter of routine in order to study or dissect them post-mortem. That's not euthanasia; if you're going to extend the term to cover that, you render it meaningless. That is, you're simply using it to mean "kill," in which case just use that word. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you're wrong as euthansia simply means killing without pain or suffering (e.g. OED: 1. A gentle and easy death. 2. The means of bringing about a gentle and easy death. Also transf. and fig. 3. In recent use: The action of inducing a gentle and easy death. Used esp. with reference to a proposal that the law should sanction the putting painlessly to death of those suffering from incurable and extremely painful diseases.) with the meaning you're advocating being more recent. But I don't really care what word we use and killing means the same thing. --Coroebus 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Coroebus, if I were to approach the next person I met in the street in order to give them a gentle and easy death, I would not be charged with euthanasia! The definition incorporates a sense of mercy killing, no matter how arguable e.g. because of illness, homelessness, being cooped up in an animal shelter, etc. Even that use of the word is stretching things, but it is at least arguable. But to use it for animals who are being killed needlessly so that researchers can dissect them is to render the term meaningless. We also have no evidence that they are given easy and gentle deaths. To use that term is to buy into the animal-testing industry's POV. "Kill" is an entirely descriptive term which implies nothing about whether it's legal/illegal, necessary/unnecessary, painful/pain-free. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start a fight with you since I don't care what word is used - but I have to object that euthanasia has a very specific meaning (#1 above), it is a word that has been around for hundreds of years, in more recent times there has been a debate about euthanasia in the sense of #3, but that doesn't stop the word meaning what it means. You could object that its use in this context would be misleading (although, interestingly, animal charities will refer to euthanising unwanted animals) but you can't retroactively redefine the word (cf. 1646 BP. HALL Balm Gil. 337 But let me prescribe and commend to thee, my sonne, this true spirituall meanes of thine happy Euthanasia. 1709 Tatler No. 44 {page}3 Give me but gentle Death: Euthanasia, Euthanasia, that is all I implore. 1768 BURKE Corr. (1844) I. 155 At her age, no friend could have hoped for your mother any thing but the Euthanasia. 1837 CARLYLE Fr. Rev. II. v. v, Not a torture death, but a quiet euthanasia.) --Coroebus 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, C. Even if you remove the "mercy killing" aspect, we're still left with no idea whether the animals are given a gentle and easy death. I'm not keen on using that word in articles about animal protection groups either, incidentally, for the same reason, which is primarily that I see no reason to use euphemisms on Wikipedia. We don't write that people have "passed away," so let's also not write that animals have been "euthanized." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Coroebus hits the proverbial nail on the head when he talk abour animal charities refering to "euthanising unwanted animals" (see animal euthanasia). This euthanasia is not necessarily "for their own good" nor a "mercy killing", as - given the choice - i'm sure the animals would rather survive and live among Ingrid Newkirk's menagerie. However, given the situation they are in, someone makes the decision that a relatively painless death is better than the alternative that is logistically open to them. The exact same can be said of animals that are killed after experimentation.

However, that issue is rendered circumstantial, as the definition of the term does not solely encompass the context your are are using it, SV. According to our sister project among other dictionaries, euthanasia can simply mean "The practice of killing a human being or animal who is suffering greatly or has very poor quality of life". Seeing as the "suffering" and "poor quality of life" of research animals is one of the major concerns of the animal rights fraternity, i'm confused about what aspect of that dicdef does not apply, in your opinion, to research animals after experimentation?

Some of the animals would have a perfectly good quality of life if the researchers would simply let them go instead of dissecting them, RP, so that argument's a non-starter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they would, that is exactly my point. (Actually, I'm lying. To be perfectly honest, they wouldn't. Almost all lab animals wouldn't last 5 minutes if they were just "let go", but lets pretend they would).

I don't see why not if homes could be found. The animals who've been removed by the ALF have often done well apparently, and there are sanctuaries set up for primates who are sometimes released. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If thats the argument against calling it "euthanasia", then why can't homes not be found for the strays PETA euthanises? The same logic applies. Rockpocket 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In almost every situation so-called animal euthanasia is not the "best option" for the animal (ask the animal and he would conjure up something like spending thousands of dollars pampering to its every need for the rest of its life). What it is, is the best option considering the limiting parameters the animal finds itself in (either a overcrowded PETA shelter or a research lab). Thus within the context of the animal's situation when the decision is made to kill, the death a lab animal experiences most certainly fulfils the definition of euthanasia just as much as one of PETA's mercy killings does. Rockpocket 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if we accept that, there's no evidence the animals are given a gentle and painless death. And as discussed elsewhere, many are killed by the experiments and die in great pain. To use the term "euthanasia" in this context is to buy into a particular POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As per below, those killed by the experiments are not "subsequently killed" (as the article states). They are killed as a consequence of the experiment and I agree that is certainly not euthanasia. Those killed subsequently are humanely killed and thus are euthanised. Which are we talking about? Rockpocket 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the term is used widely in animal experimentation legislature in the US [3] when referring to the exact process as we use in the article. Interestingly enough, the UK legislature seems to all but avoid the term, instead repeatedly using "humane killing" [4]. Many would suggest the two are interchangable, but since this is a term counched in [UK] law, would anyone object to the used of "humanely killed" in the article instead, with Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as a source?) Rockpocket 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The further problem, RP, is that lots of animals are killed by the experiments. So we don't in fact know that they are humanely killed. They may die in great pain, or some of them may. Do we have any idea of numbers? For example, with the LD50 test, the animals are not humanely killed. Quite the reverse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we are referring to the ones killed by an experiment it should read "consequently killed" instead of "subsequently killed". Death is not a subsequence if it is the inherent purpose of the experiment (thats kind of like saying death is a subsequence of execution!). Few animals are killed by experiments unless that is an expected outcome. Many experiments require animal tissue that are harvested from euthanised animals and many more experiments will leave animals in pain or distress (but not dead, or even close to dying). Which is the reason they are subsequently euthanised. In fact, in most situations those animals that are killed subsequent to the experiment have to, by law or local regulation, be euthanised in a prescribed, humane manner (hence the language in the legislature). There is a key distinction to be made here. Rockpocket 07:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RP, do you have sources showing the numbers killed by the experiments intentionally, by the experiments unintentionally, and killed afterwards to be dissected? Also, do you have sources showing the animals must be killed after the experiments by law? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think either "humanely killed" or "euthanized" are appropriate. I think RP's argument that the term is widely used in the experimentation legislature, in addition to the fact that that is the proper term for the scientific procedure, are sufficient arguments to warrant the use of that term. All other agruments are irrelevant. Nrets 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Thats not entirely so, Nrets. SV is right in that those animals for which death is an endpoint of the experimental procedure will not necessarily meet the criteria for "euthanasia". For example, if I am doing an experiment on clotting to see how long a mouse bleeds out, or say I'm testing football helmets on primates, its entirely possible that the my experimental procedure will result in the death of the animal in a not very humane manner. These consequent deaths are not euthanasia by anyone's standards. However, for many procedures, like surgery, tail tipping, transgenics or - even quite nasty, injurous experiments - like toxicology testing of caustic substances, legislation and ethics committees ensure protocols will stipulate that some experimental point, or when the experiment is completed, the animal be killed in a humane manner. These subsequent deaths are clearly "euthanasia" per the dicdef. We should distinguish between these if we are to be accurate in our description.

SV asked for sources. Tricky, but here goes: If you read the UK Government's guidance for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (basically the practical guide to stay within the law). In Chapter 4 there is a section that details how records must be kept of animal disposal. This covers all the options available to you to get rid of your animal. It says you must record:

• Those "killed by an appropriate method listed in Schedule 1" (which lists "appropriate method[s] of humane killing"):
  • whether on welfare grounds
  • for harvesting tissues for experimental or other scientific purposes
  • or as surplus to requirements

(These are the humane deaths by ethanasia I refer to above)

• Deaths from other causes

(These are the consequent, non-Schedule 1, deaths I refer to above as well as other unexplained and unexpected deaths that may or may not be related to experimental procedures and those that die "of old age". All clearly not euthanasia)

• supplied to another designated establishment
• discharged from the controls of the Act (for example, to a farm, as a pet, back to stock, to a slaughter house, to the wild, or supplied for export).

(These have obviously escaped death... for now)

So, in the UK at least, you can see how the law segregates the humane killing (schedule 1) and non-humane killing with those that are related to procedures and those that are not. Since these numbers are recorded by law, they must be documented somwhere. Whether those numbers are made available to the public is another matter. I can't really speak for the US legislature or other countries. However, my personal experience is that local regulations tend to mimic the British legislature in that a schedule 1 type of humane killing is required whenever possible. So, I would argue this supports the following content in the lead:

"is estimated that 50 to 100 million animals worldwide [4][5][6] — from fruit flies and mice to non-human primates — are used annually and either killed during the experiments or subsequently euthanised"

Is that acceptable?? Rockpocket 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise, RP. Although to say that they are killed and not euthanized during the experiment is also not entirely accurate. For example you can euthanize an animal before or during the experiment in order to extract tissue for culturing. But that's a minor point, I think your phrasing is good. Nrets 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise. Thanks for supplying all that information, RP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As the one who started this whole debate, I was concerned the terms "killing" and "euthanasia" were not being used consistently when the operators were animal experimenters, or animal rights activists, or veterinarians. Euthanasia is a very sensitive topic to people who are involved in the process, it probably requires a policy similar to the policy on the use of the word terrorism/terrorist so that these reversions between euthanasia and kill are at least consistent and referenced to some standard, and not allowed to be used as POV tools in the controversy on animal testing. I personally do not think the compromise reflects reality. Animals rarely if ever are killed and not euthanized in experiments, but they do occasionally die incidentally. For example, we do non-invasive behavioral studies on old animals. We keep them until they die. Their death is not usually euthanasia but of natural causes. In my experience, these types of deaths are FAR FAR FAR more common than experimental killings that do not constitute euthanasia (which I have NEVER come across in decades in "the business"). Animals might also die of infections, or as a complication for something like a stroke or cardiac infarction study, but those are unintended consequences (and not euthanasia either). THE ONLY EXCUSE for killing an animal in an experiment intentionally without euthanasia is if you are studying death itself. AT ALL OTHER TIMES analgesia or anesthesia would preclude actual death in the experiment because anything less would fail animal welfare standards. This is stated quite clearly in "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals". I also don't have a problem with the term "kill" being used there PROVIDED its use is consistent across the many pages that reference animals being killed and/or euthanized. PETA is the other notable page in this regard. --Animalresearcher 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To re-phase more succinctly, I think the change doesn't reflect that animals die MOST OFTEN from euthanasia, much less often but in significant numbers due to unintended circumstances, and rarely if ever without euthanasia as part of experimental goals. But my concern is mostly with a consistent WIKI policy or standard on the use of the terms euthanasia and kill with regards to animals. There is too much inconsistent reverting going on here and at PETA. If referenced to a standard and applied consistently, it could all be avoided. Or at least much of it. --Animalresearcher 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue of consistency is a valid concern, and perhaps something that could be addressed at WP:WPAR. I agree - and believe i noted above - that death during experiments is rare. However, there are occasions that it occurs even when death itself is not being studied. Of example terminal endpoint experiments do occur where anaesthesia is lacking because it will interfere with the study parameters; I believe this occurs in certain clotting experiments. Analgesia may be used in these cases, but providing limited pain relief when causing a conscious animal to die doesn't quite cut it as euthanasia in my eyes. Nevertheless, since we can't provide a reliable source indicating how lab animals die, instead relying on our personal experience, any argument about relative numbers is moot. That is why I proposed the compromise, it covers the two major aspects of animal death without speculating on how common each are. Rockpocket 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information about a new study

It may already be in the article, or it may be irrelevant, but this just came out: Mismatch found between drug trials on animals, humans. A link to an abstract on the study is to the right of the article text. Anchoress 01:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)