Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 2 December 2019

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: 30 days

	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

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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.

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 page is not the place to give your views on animal testing. This page is for discussing the Misplaced Pages page animal testing.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215065035/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-24/world/37276084_1_animal-activists-human-simulators-civilian-trauma to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-24/world/37276084_1_animal-activists-human-simulators-civilian-trauma

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding "Cruelty to animals" category in Animal Testing article

I added category "Cruelty to animals" to the article Animal testing. However, it was reverted for some reason. Can anyone clarify as to why it should not be added here? I felt it was one of the primary categories in the article given the fact that animal testing is one of the chief manifestations of speciesism and cruelty is an inseparable factor in animal testing despite our tagging it with "ethical," "humane," and other euphemistic adjectives. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a clear and obvious violation of WP:NPOV and an attempt to categorize only based on your viewpoint for purely prejudicial purposes. Look at all the other categories; nothing so clearly biased as your attempted addition appears. HCA (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is already in the parent category Category:Animal welfare, so if it is added to Category:Cruelty to animals it should be removed from the parent category per WP:CAT. The problem with such a move is that, ironically, in the USA animal testing is typically explicitly exempted from state and local animal anti-cruelty laws. This means that the animal cruelty that occurs in animal testing laboratories goes unprosecuted in the USA. I don't know anything about the status of animal testing in relation to animal anti-cruelty laws in other countries. But certainly in the USA, animal testing per se is not considered animal cruelty in most state and local laws. Biogeographist (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That (the part about US law) is spectacularly untrue. Animal research labs in the US are intensely regulated, by law. It's just that testing per se is not considered a criminal activity. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: You called my comment "spectacularly untrue" and then you repeated the point of my comment. My earlier comment said: "animal testing per se is not considered animal cruelty" in most criminal codes in the USA. Your comment said: "testing per se is not considered a criminal activity". We were making exactly the same point. Perhaps it was not clear that when I said "testing is typically explicitly exempted from state and local animal anti-cruelty laws" I meant in criminal codes (which was implied by my reference to prosecution in the subsequent sentence). If a person were to treat an animal in public the way some animals are treated in laboratories, that person would be liable to prosecution for animal cruelty in many jurisdictions. But the same treatment would not be considered animal cruelty in laboratories. Biogeographist (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. It sounded like you were taking the position that animal testing should be subject to prosecution, that you thought existing laws are lamentable. As for a person "treat an animal in public" that way, I cannot imagine anyone doing animal testing out on the street, and without proper training in the correct manner of handling animals in a humane way. And if what you think goes on in US research laboratories (at least since roughly the turn of the century) is in any way like what reasonable persons consider to be animal cruelty, you should familiarize yourself with Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, as well as the documentation required by the National Institutes of Health and other scientific agencies. There are very, very detailed requirements than US scientists must follow, that are designed to eliminate or minimize animal pain or discomfort. The false narrative of animals being tormented in labs (at least since roughly the turn of the century) is one that is pushed by some animal rights groups, but it is false nevertheless. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: No, I wasn't implying that animal testing should be subject to prosecution; I was just presenting a reason why this article doesn't belong in Category:Cruelty to animals (not the only possible reason nor even an especially strong reason). People have been prosecuted for animal cruelty for causing much less harm to animals than the harm that necessarily occurs in some animal experimentation, so (although it is not relevant to the current discussion) I do take the position that there is something "lamentable" and contradictory about existing laws, but not in a way that would be remedied by criminalizing animal testing. Biogeographist (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, please just chalk it up to a misunderstanding, thanks. And I do agree with you about the category. About the existing laws, I guess WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Biogeographist, for the clarification. It's indeed ironical that our civilization is yet to comprehend the meaning of cruelty. Rasnaboy (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, User:HCA.Rasnaboy (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding such a category is so obviously a violation of WP:NPOV (and WP:RGW) as to border on disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, this and related issues have been discussed extensively in the past: see the talk page archives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable. Categories are for navigation, not definition: You put something in a category if you think that readers looking at that category would be interested in reading that article. You do not put something in a category just because it happens to objectively be part of a particular subset. It might be useful for the reader.

Also, User:SlimVirgin is probably a good editor to ask about this kind of question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish is also a good editor to ask about this kind of question. There is a lot more history underlying what you said than you realize. (If what I say needs clarification, please take it to my user talk, not here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

would agree with WAID, on this point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I also tend to like the idea of using categories to be helpful to readers, but there are some important guideline considerations that must be attended to. WP:CATV says: Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. In addition, WP:NONDEF says: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having... Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is simply not the case that reliable sources call testing "cruel" commonly and consistently, but it's absolutely true that applying this category would imply a controversial position. Anyway, Category:Animal welfare should be sufficient to help readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@ User:WhatamIdoing. Exactly my point. There's no POV involved in adding the category as doubted by some fellow editors. Not adding the category will only hide the article from the view of readers of animal rights topics. However, I agree with whatever other editors feel unanimously. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Horseshit. If I put Category:Psychopathology on the page for the page Republican Party (United States), you don't think that violates WP:NPOV? Categories, like every other byte of information on any page, are subject to NPOV, however strongly opinionated editors may feel they are "objectively true". HCA (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@HCA: Your analogy is extremely weak (see, e.g., Argument from analogy § Strength of an analogy). Animal testing is already in Category:Animal welfare, which is the parent category of Category:Cruelty to animals. For your analogy to be strong, Republican Party (United States) would have to already be in one of the parent categories of Category:Psychopathology, namely Category:Abnormal psychology or Category:Psychiatry, but it is not. The analogy is not even close, and does not support your position. Biogeographist (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And you completely missed the point. The point had nothing to do with what subcats and parent cats something is in, that's irrelevant - it's that WP:NPOV applies to Categories. HCA (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@HCA: No, I didn't miss the point; I understand your point perfectly. The point of my comment, in case you missed it, is that your unsuitable analogy "Animal testing is to Category:Cruelty to animals as Republican Party (United States) is to Category:Psychopathology" did not support your position that "Animal testing does not belong in Category:Cruelty to animals due to violation of WP:NPOV". Whether or not the placing of Republican Party (United States) into Category:Psychopathology violates WP:NPOV tells us absolutely nothing about whether the placing of Animal testing into Category:Cruelty to animals violates WP:NPOV, because the categorization schemes being compared are not analogous. Biogeographist (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That you persistently fixate on a red herring says everything necessary about the quality of your contribution to this discussion. HCA (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I claim to be a fish, so I certainly don't want to see cruelty to red herrings. And I also insist that we adhere to WP:NPOV in settling on categorization. But I'd like to suggest that editors lower the temperature of this disagreement, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that we already had consensus before HCA waved the red herring of "Horseshit. If I put Category:Psychopathology on the page for the page Republican Party (United States), you don't think that violates WP:NPOV?" I do thank HCA for prefixing the correct label to that question. Biogeographist (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD. So, do we have consensus not to apply the category to this page? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, 'Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.'

"'But who is to give the prizes?' quite a chorus of voices asked." (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) Biogeographist (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a valid point. So let me make a better analogy by staying within the parent category. Category:Animal welfare also contains the subcategory Category:Veterinary medicine and other categories of being kind to animals. But veterinary medicine is not typically considered to be animal cruelty. That's because, although they share a parent category, the subcategories represent different branches of the category tree. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better analysis. Biogeographist (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad we are seeing some common ground. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the category is problematic for this article. Cats are not a vehicle for advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I added this category was animal testing is one of the primary topics in the animal rights/cruelty domains. Every scholarly work on animal rights/cruelty speaks about scientific experiments (e.g., Peter Singer's Animal Liberation talks about in detail before moving on to other issues such as animal farming or religious cruelties). Such views of a spectrum of academic scholars are not generally brushed aside as POV for they only make it all the more worthy of critical analysis. Articles on the other similar issues, such as ritual slaughter and animal farming, come under this category. Even an article as this one discusses (or supposed to discuss) these welfare/right issues under sections like ethics, welfare concerns, etc. One can find "animal testing" in all animal rights/cruelty-related templates. Hence I thought this category should be included. There wasn't any hidden agenda from my side otherwise nor am I trying to use it as a vehicle for advocacy. Understanding the term "animal cruelty" is a sore spot for the researchers, I leave it to the fellow editors. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith participation in this discussion. I want to point out that Singer's book was written in 1975, and a lot of time has passed since then, with a great deal of tightening of the laws and regulations for research, at least in the US. There were things going on in Singer's time that would never be tolerated today. It's true that many works on animal cruelty discuss animal testing, but the reverse, whether works on animal testing tend to characterize it as cruelty, is an entirely different matter. That goes to what I said earlier about WP:DEFINING. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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 good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Animal rights articles
• Top-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles
• GA-Class Biology articles
• Mid-importance Biology articles
• WikiProject Biology articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages