Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geni (talk | contribs) at 17:46, 30 January 2005 (→Vivisection vs Animal Testing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

No Animal testing is the correct term I'm going to make some edits to this article which is going to change it somewhatGeni 13:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't care which it's called, I'm just saying it should be one article rather than two. Rosemary Amey 01:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

vivisection refers to a specific practice.. Animal testing is whole area. While the vivisection article could do with a heavy change of focus it has a right to exist (the sections on history and what the practice directly involves belong there I tend to feel that most of the ethical arguments are dealing with the general subject of animal testing so should be in their article).Geni 20:19, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I fixed a ton of spelling and grammatical errors (please spellcheck, people), but I have no idea what they are trying to say in the Efficacy Studies section...if you can tell, please fix it.--Hereticam

Tried to make it clearer. (By the way, you can quickly sign your name and the date by typing four tildes (~) together.) Rosemary Amey 01:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

not only medical

i think this page also should deal with the testing of cosmetics on animals - i cant deal wit hit as i have a major POV problem with it and it'll show, but anoyone else is welcom to try it and i can chek it or whatever if wanted/needed. Selphie 09:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

LD50

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

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

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

Kyz's comment in the history

You may well be right Kyz but I'm still unhappy with it because "most people", as you say, is an undocumented, unquantified group and I don't see the evidence to target animal rights activists in this section of the article. Maybe that part of the paragraph should be moved to the "controversy" section of the page?

(user:Wayland)

I agree with moving the sentence to the controversy section. I have also mentioned that animal welfare activists may also mis-label all animal testing as vivisection. The statement states that the term may be used, it does not accuse all AR/AW activists of using the term (for example, the RSPCA don't; the BUAV do). Kyz 10:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge?

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

Animal Experiments should point to Animal Testing

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

Mad Scientists

'Scientists and technicians involved in animal testing are particularly eager to shake off the image of being "mad scientists" who "torture animals for the sake of it".'

I changed this to ' Scientists and technicians involved in animal testing are of course particularly eager to shake off the image of being "mad scientists" who "torture animals for the sake of it", which has come about after several high priority laboratory raids have discovered video evidence of sadistic behaviour.' It was reverted. The statement is true; videos such as "Countryside Undercover", "Unecessary Fuss", "Britches", the "Silver Spring Monkey" case and the recent Covance Undercover video have all shown staff taking pleasure in tormenting and making fun of lab animals. Almost every time there is a lab raid or undercover investigation sadistic behaviour comes to light. Why was it deleted? Lack of references? If I reference it will it be left in place? Since the person who reverted this has not replied, I have changed it back again, with referenced examples this time. I have also added a few other animal rights campaigners' claims, with references.

You can of course prove that the mad scientist image do not predate the films?Geni 14:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Vivisection vs Animal Testing

I have also altered the comments about the term "vivisection", as before it was implied that only animal rights campaigners refer to animal experiments as vivisection, in an attempt to show the practice in a negative light. This was not NPOV, and it was unreferenced. In fact, the term vivisection now seems to be an acceptable way to describe all animal experiments. For example, "The American Encycloapaedia" - "Vivisection: the term is applied to all kinds of experimentation on animals whether or not cuttig is involved", "Merrian-Webster Dictionary" - "Broadly, any form of animal experimentation, especially if considered to cause distress to the subject", "Blakistons New Gold medical dictionary" - "Vivisectionist: he who practices and defends animal experimentation", www.dictionary.com - "The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research." , www.dictionary.co.uk - "the cutting up or other use of living animals in tests which are intended to increase human knowledge of human diseases and the effects of using particular drugs" If most dictionaries describe vivisection as any animal experiments, whether or not the invlve cutting or surgery, then perhaps the pages should be merged after all?

No. vivisection Is an a 1 form of animal experimentation it would not be a good word to describe say behaverial experiments on ratsGeni 14:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Removed POV comment about cosmtic testing

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