User talk:Rockpocket/Scrapbook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi RP,
Thanks for the note, I'm getting ready to go on vacation soon, so I'll take a closer look when I return mid-August, but here are some suggestions based on first impressions:
- I would also add to the list the article on Animal welfare
- I'm not convinced whether the list of individuals should be included, since it seems selected based on the fact that they were harrassed by animal rights activists or are politically involved. However the list of notable animal researchers is much more extensive. One could argue that Louis Pasteur or David Hubel should be on the list due to their breakthrough experiments involving animals, for example.
- How about inlcuding a section on model organisms with links to the different species: Xenopus laevis, Mouse, Macaque, Drosophila, etc.
- How about a section devoted to scientific developments resulting from animal research? Or a link to an article that contains a list of them with links.
Anyway, hope this helps, I'll take a better look when I return and I'll think of some images. Nrets 14:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I am generally supportive of the practice of using navigational aids ("navigation boxes") that link related articles. However, I feel that the {{animal liberation movement template}} is mainly an instrument for advocating a political point of view. In my view, Wikipedia is not a place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view. In short, my view is that the animal liberation movement template should not exist within Wikipedia. For example, the article about the republican party does not include a navigation box that links to everything in Category:Republican Party (United States). It does have a navigation box that links to other "Political Parties of the United States". I believe that navigational aids should be used to link readers to related articles that they would probably not already know to look for. When dealing with politicized topics, navigation aids should broaden the perspective of Wikipedia readers, not narrowly focus it....the category system already provides a navigation system that organizes each narrow domain of knowledge. We do not need "eye catching" navigation boxes that exist as banners for advocates of political or religious belief systems. The topic of "research using animals" is highly politicized by the animal liberation movement. I think we need to avoid the possibility of creating even a hint that there is a politically-motivated tit-for-tat within Wikipedia by which the inappropriate animal liberation movement template stimulates the creation of an alternative "pro-animal research" navigation template. I think that it would be wise to try to do what has been done for the Wikipedia articles about the individual political parties: create a navigation box that provides Wikipedia readers with a wider perspective. I think that the Animal testing article raises important issues that fall under the general heading of Bioethics. I would support the creation of a template for a "navigation box" that could be used to link articles such as Animal testing to other articles that deal with bioethics. Such a navigation box might provide links to bioethics and ethics, to articles about important bioethicists and the main articles about animal experimentation, biomedical research (should be greatly expanded), animal welfare, eugenics, genetically modified organisms and medical ethics. I think we should take on the broad goal of providing Wikipedia readers with easy access to the broad range of ideas that are needed to think intelligently about politicized topics such as "research using animals". If we do this well, then the community will be provided with a another good example of the "right way" to use navigation boxes that will stand in contrast to what I feel is the inappropriate animal liberation movement template. --JWSchmidt 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agencies: National Academy of Sciences Institute of Laboratory Animal Research: http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarhome/
USDA/APHIS: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/subjects/animal_welfare/
MRC in UK (more specific link): http://www.mrc.ac.uk/index/current-research/funding-governance.htm#animals
Groups:
RDS: http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/home.asp?i_ToolbarID=8&i_PageID=94
FBResearch: http://www.fbresearch.org/
PETA: http://www.peta.org/
BUAV: http://www.buav.org/
Animal Welfare Institute: http://www.awionline.org/
ALF: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/
Michael J Fox Foundation: http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=180&sec=1
Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute: http://www.alz.org/Research/Reagan/overview.asp
American Veterinary Medical Association: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/policy.asp
The Humane Society: http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/
Patients Voice for Medical Advance: http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/simr/patientsvoicehomepg.html
Americans for Medical Progress: http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.913145/k.4502/Americans_for_Medical_Progress.htm
Biomedical Research Education Trust: http://www.bret.org.uk/
European Biomedical Research Association: http://www.ebra.org/
Incurably Ill for Animal Research: http://www.iifar.org/
hth
--Animalresearcher 14:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message Rockpocket, not been on here much but would be happy to help if I can.
I like the idea, especially as I notice the Animal liberation template has sprouted an 'Experiments' section which seems to outline the worst examples of animal research, without anything to balance it.
I would definitely support this template becoming more of an overview of the whole subject.
The 'animal' section on your list I don't think would add much to any future template, especially as the ones there only represent a miniscule minority of types of animal testing (space and whole animal cloning). Even if it were to be expanded, I'm not sure how, I don't think this would be particularly useful. This section might be more useful linking to organisms commonly used in tests (Drosophila, Mus musculus, Xenopus, Danio rerio..), but I'm not sure about this either.
The other sections look good, and I wouldn't worry too much about being anglo-american-centric. I think that is inevitable on here, and even more so given the subject. That's not to exclude any potential groups from other nations, but they are much more low profile as is the debate in other countries.
Anyway, not sure this is of much use, but will give it some thought and keep track of this and any new template. Cheers, |→ Spaully°τ 10:28, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
[edit] Thanks for your comments
Thank you all for you comments. On reflection, i am minded to concur with JWSchmidt about the politicising of articles using Nav Boxes. I think my initial proposal was a tit-for-tat reaction to the animal lib box, and as my mother used to say, two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, if this goes ahead, i think it has to be scrupulously NPOV. I'll work on it over time and perhaps invite comment again in the future. Rockpocket 07:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
