Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 08:12, 1 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Animal testing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 12 months

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

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Animal testing. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Animal testing at the Reference desk.

	Animal testing has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 22, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animal rights Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Veganism and Vegetarianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biology Mid‑importance Animal testing is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

On January 2016, it was proposed that this article be moved from Animal testing to Animal research. The result of the discussion was not moved.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alissapalushi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lindsph. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moore4jp (article contribs).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. ] The anchor (#Force-length and force-velocity relationships) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Systematic Reviews and Meta Studies

I'd like to supplement this article with a list of Systematic Reviews (SR's) and Meta-Studies (MS's). Unfortunately the few that are mentioned do not seem to be accurately represented (e.g. this article states: 'such studies can be difficult to interpret, and it is argued that they are not always comparable to human diseases' but the paper cited for this claim actually states: 'Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews'). Every SR and MS I could find is critical of animal testing, so the proposed article is titled 'Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views'. I believe this would contribute to a more informed and robust account of animal testing. If there are objections based on the negative accounts of the SR's and MS's, then if anyone can supply links to publicly verifiable material that is supportive, then those can be included too (I could not find any). Carlduff (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, Can you link 3-5 of the best studies, and the conclusion you'd like to draw from them? As I understand it, you'd like to note that animal testing is flawed as a research practice? Captain Eek ⚓ 20:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek The problem is "best" studies according to whom? That could result in accusations of cherry picking and synthesising and such. All SR's and MS's I have found are very critical of animal testing, so I simply believe it would make for a more rounded and robust article to acknowledge them, and accurately (hence just listing quotes to avoid accusations of bias). Again, if there are MS's and SR's out there that are supportive, then I would love to know about them. Otherwise, it would also be helpful to accurately reflect the papers that are referenced, such as the one I already mentioned, above. Carlduff (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Carlduff, My metric for best here would be the studies which specifically review the use of animal testing, and are SR/MR. Said reviews should note in them their conclusions on animal testing, which we could then report. Again, using lists of quotes is not our style. We present information using prose whenever possible. That does allow us to summarize what sources are saying. Based on , , and I might construct the following sentence Systemic reviews have pointed out that animal testing often fails to accurately mirror outcomes in humans. For instance, a 2013 review noted that some 100 vaccines have been shown to prevent HIV in animals, yet none of them have worked on humans. I think I will add this and start a section, which could be expanded upon. Captain Eek ⚓ 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek I think I see where you are going. OK, I believe the "best" (general) articles are:

The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice… animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods… of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated , only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials .

— The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation (2015) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046

Systematic review and meta-analysis have provided empirical evidence that too many preclinical experiments lack methodological rigor, and this leads to inflated treatment effects. There is of course no guarantee that improvements in the validity of preclinical animal studies and reduced publication bias will improve the translational hit of interventions from bench to bedside.

— Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically (2014) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013765

...41% of the studies did not describe the age of their animal model... A general observation in our risk of bias assessment was that the majority of the included studies did not provide sufficient information to assess the risk of bias. The studies did not adequately describe details regarding allocation of animals to the experimental groups, adjustments for baseline differences, concealment of allocation, randomization, blinding and addressing incomplete outcome data.

— Drug delivery systems for ovarian cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies (2015) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690347

These deficiencies in the reporting of animal study design, which are clearly widespread, raise the concern that the reviewers of these studies could not adequately identify potential limitations in the experimental design and/or data analysis, limiting the benefit of the findings...Numerous publications have called attention to the lack of transparency in reporting, yet studies in the life sciences in general, and in animals in particular, still often lack adequate reporting on the design, conduct and analysis of the experiments.

— A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research (2012) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511845

Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence…However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation.

— A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible (2010) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20507187

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• GA-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
• GA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
• GA-Class Animal rights articles
• Top-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles
• GA-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
• Mid-importance Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
• WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
• GA-Class Biology articles
• Mid-importance Biology articles
• WikiProject Biology articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• GA-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles