Talk:Animal testing/Archive 10

Globalize
Are there governments which don't condone or allow animal testing? The US and UK govt's are singled out in the lede. On the other hand, the anti-testing movement is probably the noisiest in these countries, so it seem appropriate to mention PETA and BUAV in the lede. In the EU animal testing is increasingly regulated from Brussels; there's a bit of discussion about that in the article, mostly in relation to cosmetics, but this is not mentioned at all. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it hasn't happened yet. Draft directives may change a lot before they are voted on, and even then may not be adopted. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But there plenty of Wikipedia articles that discuss legislative proposals. This one seems significant enough to mention in here. There are some links to newspaper article at the bottom of the web page I've linked above. The article in The Guardian seems the most detailed. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about globalisation, however, this article really should pay more attention to the fact that tightening animal regulations in one country may result in companies outsourcing research to countries with less restrictive regulations. This is discussed a bit here. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's also in the "may or may not happen" department. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be renamed animal research
Although animal testing is the common term it is not the most accurate. Animal research encompasses all manner of animal experiments, whereas animal testing generally means safety testing. For instance when breeding two animals in order to experiment on the young, you would say you have "tested" on the parents, but you would have been part of the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London prophet (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This point is debated periodically. I have always preferred something other than "animal testing", but I've also lost this point each time it has come up. The British Home Office refers to content like the content of this page as "Research and testing using animals" which I think is accurate but longer. In the USA, the USDA refers to "animal care and use in research, testing, teaching, and exhibition", so animal use in research, testing, teaching, and exhibition would fit, but is way too long. There is also WP:NAME which encourages using the name readers will most broadly recognize. In the US, "animal research" would be a good name by this criteria, and "Animal testing" is scarcely recognized. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism targeting medical scientists
I'm planning to write a paragraph about the 2006-2008 events described in, mostly about attacks on scientists involved in non-human primate research. I hope the source is acceptable. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All I see on that page is a list of researchers with links to their work. Do you have links to the info you plan to add? Do you have a definition for terrorism? If you plan to use that word, you probably should. Are these threats you are talking about or attacks? Bob98133 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Biological Psychiatry is a scientific journal; you need subscription for full text online access or you can go to (practically any) academic library. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Scientific journals are definitely good sources. The subject matter may or may not be appropriate for this page. "Terrorism" is a hot-word by wiki standards, if you include that word I recommend reading the wikipedia issues relating to its use before you use it. Better overview sources would complement the portions about prominent cases already. I'll check the article tomorrow. --Animalresearcher (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot new there that couldn't be supported with more easily accessible sources - except maybe the bit about the ALF having a restraining order around UCLA researcher homes. I guess if the ALF strikes again they will have more charges the police can bring. The article, which is authored by a few dozen very eminent scientists, basically refers to the incidents at UCLA, UCSC, Utah, and OHSU, and refer to trends in activism in the UK and USA, as well as new legislative efforts. They do refer to the activists as terrorists pretty bluntly. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Back out jrtayloriv changes
I backed out a bunch of changes made by jrtayloriv. There were numerous reasons. The lead photo, for example, was a heavily debated, consensus change, many months ago, and should be subject to debate. The space chimp, while dated, is a picture of animal testing provided by the animal testers, and is not as subject to claims of bias as the photos taken by animal rights activists. The ALF is not mentioned in the lead NOT because of omission of their viewpoint, but because the lead cannot mention everything, and BUAV and PETA are already linked in the lead. The addition of photos to the pain and suffering section lengthens the page, which already exceeds good page length guidelines, and the tag on the monkey photo was inappropriate, wrong, and unreferenced. The changes, en todo, were heavily biased, without adding referenced material. And the Silver Spring monkeys photo, because of the suspicion that it was staged by Pacheco (which is referenced on the Silver Spring monkey page), is not suitable on this page, but is suitable on the Silver Spring monkey page. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns about the photos. You don't need to pretend that the reason that you removed the pictures in the "Pain" section was because of length of the page -- we both understand your reasons, so let's just talk honestly to each other. Let's forget about the pain photos for now, and talk about that in a seperate discussion later in order to keep this discussion focused.
 * As far as the picture in the intro: you said that the picture of the space chimp in the intro was provided by animal testers, so wouldn't that be biased in favor of animal testing? Perhaps we should try to find a photo of animal testing that was taken by a neutral third party -- would you be up to that?
 * And about the ALF in the intro. Do you not feel like they are notable enough? I understand that everything cannot be mentioned, but they are one of the most notable groups. Do you not agree with this? If so, what are your reasons. Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And I would like to add that, personally I feel that the lead would be more balanced by inserting the ALF in there in place of BUAV. BUAV and PETA both have similar beliefs and practices, while the ALF is markedly different from both of them in many respects. So I think that in order to balance out all viewpoints, the ALF should be included as well, or in place of BUAV, which is not quite as notable as PETA. Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is another area that was discussed ad nauseam. You are going to feel handicapped editing the page if you do not know the history of the debate on the lead. Just as you think ALF should replace BUAV, others think HSUS should replace PETA. And so on. You simply cannot mention everything in the LEAD. I actually think mentioning only one group is fine, there is a WHOLE PAGE on animal rights groups. This page is about animal testing. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jrtaylor..Please try to stick to the subject. We may all have different POVs but Animalresearcher has provided valuable NPOV info and editing to this article. If you can find a "neutral" animal testing image, please do, but that has always been problematic. While ALF is notable, they are not a group in the true sense, but a movement in support of an ideology. As such, they have no membership or leadership, and understandably rarely supply references or research to support their actions, so they are less notable in the context of an article such as this. Bob98133 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob98133 -- I am trying to stick to the subject, namely two of the edits that Animalresearcher reverted.
 * As far as the image being neutral -- personally, since the image caption did not make any conclusions about the image, I don't see how it wasn't neutral. It was just a more clear, modern, color photo, and took up less space -- which Animalresearch is concerned about as well. If people don't believe that animals have feelings, they will see nothing in the picture. If they do then they will. That would be true for any picture of an animal being experimented on. For instance, I'll be open. Personally, the picture of the space chimp bothers me as much as the photo that I put up. It's just that it's old, and in black and white, and does not depict modern research. What do you think about my suggestion of a photo from a neutral third party -- maybe a news reporter, instead of a researcher or an activist?
 * As far as the ALF being a movement -- that is an example of one of the types of things I mentioned that I think makes them very different from PETA or BUAV, along with their beliefs and tactics. And while they might not self-publish references suitable for Wikipedia, there have been immense amounts of coverage of their actions and beliefs in reliable sources that are suitable for Wikipedia. That is what I meant by notable -- noted regularly in numerous reliable sources. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Having no leadership or official membership roll does not at all affect their validity as an organization, it merely makes them different from many other types of organizations.Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The image in the lead of the space chimp is not "biased" towards animal testers, imho. It clearly shows restraint and invasive procedures on the most contentious species used in testing. However, it is provided public domain by NASA, and we can identify the group doing the testing, their aims, as well as having a visual graphic of the impact on the animal. The picture you provided was lower quality, not identified with any testing agency or purpose, and clearly chosen to show the negative impact of the testing on the animal without reference to the impact of the testing on society. There are two sides to testing - the NASA image shows both. Your image shows a particularly negative impact of one. Good images are a difficult problem at wikipedia, especially for animal testing. You really ought to go read the discussion pages to see how we arrived at the chimp. There were a lot of calls to use rodents because of their prominence in testing compared to primates. There were calls to use a picture of a shaved macaque in a cage (again, there is no reference to what the testing may have constituted for that animal), and the people more concerned with animal rights were adamant about using a primate. The NASA archives are all public domain pictures, have historical relevance, and show primates in a view that identifies both the purpose of the testing and the impact on the animal. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another issue I had with the edits is that they were obviously inspired by your personal beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that, mine are too, obviously. But Wikipedia is not a congruence of personal beliefs. It is a collective of reliable third party sources to the topic at hand. Accordingly, if there are good articles on animal testing that make an argument that ALF is more notable than BUAV, you could argue they should be included in the lead instead. I think you will find that BUAV is in the press far more often, as they argue in front of legislative bodies a lot, and ALF cannot do that. You may actually find that HSUS is more notable than either BUAV or PETA (I suspect you would). But the page should be based on referenced, reliable, third party sources with viewpoints derived from those sources. Your edits added no new references, they simply shifted bias, made some statements that are demonstrably false, and added POV photos, in some cases replacing consensus photos. I think this page is relatively stable currently - there have been AT LEAST a dozen people who have combed over third party sources, and lots of editing debate from people with very different POVs who all worked it out. But as the third party reliably sourced material changes, the page should change also. And there is no guarantee we've found all the reliable third party material. But I personally find it doubtful that any major changes will come to this page in the near future. And if they do, they will need to be justified in reliable third party sources. --Animalresearcher (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You make a very good point about the image. I understand the choice to use it now. Unfortunately I am going to have to be away from Wikipedia for a while, but when I get back, I would like to discuss the topic of including the ALF in the intro. I will open up a new topic in this discussion page to do so. Thanks for being straightforward and taking the time to explain your reasoning in removing my edits. Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Regulation section needs expansion
Hi, I just happened by and noted that the section of regulation is pretty sparse, especially given that I've had to sit through 3-hour classes on the subject 3 times now. There's a half-dozen agencies involved, loads of rules that can be linked to, more detailed descriptions of IACUC procedures, and a description of penalties for violations. As it stands, it makes no mention of the usual bi-annual IACUC inspections, the random surprise inspections from any of the half-dozen regulatory bodies, or the extremely high cost for even minor violations (I recall hearing of one minor issue garnering a $10,000 *per day* fine). It also gives the impression that IACUC 'rubber-stamps' most things, when in reality, any procedure differing from the most common and routine can take months of back-and-forth to get accepted. Oh, it also doesn't mention that at many institutions, all animal care is handled by assistants directly employed by IACUC. Unfortunately, I'm bogged down in editing articles closer to my research area, but the information should be all over the web - including 'IACUC' in a google search will often bring up entire PDF documents with 40+ pages of policy. Mokele (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This article is already quite long. Perhaps animal testing regulation should be a separate article. For every rule mentioned, there will be cases in which the rule was broken, so simply presenting a laundry list of rules that govern IACUCs would suggest that these rules are inviolate. Adding a history of violations would be unwieldy. The possibility of duplication and redundancy do not appear to be exhaustively investigated by all IACUCs, whom I believe are generally composed of busy volunteers with other obligations, nor is the mandate to investigate alternatives always adhered to. Determination of unnecessarily painful procedures has also been controversial. I'm all for all of the referenced information to be available, but I'm not sure that this article would be the best place. Bob98133 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob98133. This article covers animal testing worldwide. Certainly some mention of IACUCs should occur, as they are central to regulation in the USA, but the rest of the world is not covered by IACUCs. The IACUC has its own page. I've been meaning to add to it for some time, as it might make good use of the years I've spent on one. Mokele, I am sorry to hear your IACUC is inefficient - there is a lot of that going around these days. However, it would be a pretty substantial issue if ANY institution employed caretakers through an IACUC - they should be employed through some type of Lab Animal Services that is ALSO regulated by the IACUC, but not provided by the IACUC. --Animalresearcher (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mokele, and Bob, I've had at it with the IACUC page to bring it up to speed, and also minorly tweaked the IACUC relevant section on the Animal Testing page. Have a look. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Animalresearcher - I made some minor punctuation changes to the IACUC page - they might not be technically, gramically correct, but I hope they improve the look. If you disagree, feel free to revert, it's a minor issue. As earlier, my only complaint with listing the IACUC rules is that it implies that they are always followed, but the sections on Reliability in IACUC and the Ethics section in this article add balance, so on the whole, great job. Thanks for your work on these. Bob98133 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request
Please delete this section in the discussion page once the edit is completed.

Due to the page being locked, I am not authorised to fix this sentence:

"These attacks, as well as similar incidents that caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to declare in 2002 that the animal rights movement had "clearly taken a turn toward the more extreme," this prompted the US government to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the UK government to add the offense of "Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation" to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.[177] "

It is not a funtional sentence and could possibly be repaired by removing the word "this" as in: extreme," this prompted the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElTimbalino (talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Straw man
The citation given doesn't appear to me to state any documented views of anti vivisectionists about pure research. Possibly modify this statement, unless citations can be found supporting the assertion ?

"Those opposed to animal testing object that pure research may have little or no practical purpose, but researchers argue that it may produce unforeseen benefits, rendering the distinction between pure and applied research — research that has a specific practical aim — unclear.[99]" --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph on regulations
I'm moving this fairly recent addition here, because it isn't neutral, and making it so would make the lead too long.

"The practice of animal testing is regulated to various extents in different countries. In 1984 the WHO's Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) issued International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals, and developed countries have instituted regulatory frameworks that are more extensive. In the United States and in many other countries, review committees serve as gatekeepers for determining whether the use of animals proposed is warranted. They examine protocols to see if these can be improved by reducing or replacing animal use, and aim to minimize suffering. The trend in developed nations to offshore trials in biomedical research has also affected preclinical testing on animals, although to a lesser extent than clinical trials on humans."

The anti-testing position is that the regulations are a joke, and that animal labs are not properly inspected. As this is a major complaint about animal testing, we would need to elaborate in some detail. I therefore suggest we leave this for the body of the text. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Vivisection and animal observation
I want to explain why I have reverted some edits that, in effect, include animal observation within the "broader" definition of vivisection. Unless an editor can find a reliable source that specifically includes that definition (as opposed to describing kinds of experimental studies in which animals are observed, but without using the word vivisection), it seems to me that defining the term in this way is unverifiable. But I think I understand what the editor might be getting at: there are some critics of animal experimentation who consider even noninvasive studies of animals to be ethically improper. However, I am not aware of a scholarly use of the word vivisection for that. Perhaps a referenced example could be found of a critic of research misusing the word vivisection in this way, which might be interesting to include, and to which I would have no objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, while I can see by logical inference that the word might be used in this way, we need a source actually using the word in this way in order to say that this use/misuse occurs. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the section as it stands. It says "The term is now used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals".  Note "any experiment", without any further qualification.  That means behavior, ecology, observation, genetic testing, anything, even if non-harmful, non-invasive, or purely observational.  I agree that such a broad definition is, to put it mildly, moronic.  However, to leave that definition hanging out there, without pointing out how blatantly stupid it is, is blatant NPOV.  You're absolutely correct that there's no scholarly use of the term in that sense, but by that standard, the broad sense shouldn't be in the definition at all.  IMHO, it's NPOV to leave it as is - the "broad definition" should be removed, or there should be something pointed out it's stupidity (which is not OR under the rule of things that are immediately apparent via simple logic).  Frankly, I'd prefer the former option, because I doubt anyone, scholarly or otherwise, has had sufficient brain damage to refer to non-invasive methods as "vivisection". Mokele (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that. I'm not convinced, then, that expanding on "behavior, ecology, observation..." and so forth really adds much beyond making a WP:POINT. It is difficult to point "out how blatantly stupid it is" without becoming POV the other way. I hope that the edit I made, expanding on what the Oxford dictionary says, is a step in the right direction. (There's no shortage of places around Wikipedia where it would be good to correct an anti-animal research POV, but this paragraph probably isn't it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely think it's an improvement. Have a gander at the slight wording change I made - I felt the old wording made the "broad" definition seem as if it was now widely accepted and used.  Mokele (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It works for me. It loses the distinction between "historical" and "present-day" usage, but I think I agree with you that the claim of present-day usage was inadequately sourced and undue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this include doing here?
I don't know how to use wiki very well so I'm not sure how to explain this but scroll to the bottom of Animal Testing(and 'Blind Experiment' among others) and you will see this:

No idea what that include is or how to remove it just bringing it to someone's attention. It's the "Medical research studies" include that you use with these brackets { } —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.193.189 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 November 2009


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You can find information about editing help at Help:Contents. I've signed your message for you and moved it down to be in chronological order. The purpose of the template is to help readers find other, related articles (click where it says "show"). It serves a useful purpose, and I do not know of any valid reason to remove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Prominent Cases
I think the title needs to be re-thought, as well as the whole section. Firstly, the inclusion of Dolly seems out of place among the other cases. Secondly, the title is misleading - these are prominent *abuse* cases. "Prominent cases" would better describe prominent research that has used animals, such as the use of frogs to understand muscle physiology, squid to understand neurons, Drosophila for genetics, etc. And last, but by far not least, it strikes me as highly NPOV to have a two-page list of abuse cases without any similarly sizable section on benefits. Mokele (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I agree 100% --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If others also agree, the question becomes what to do. I'll say off the bat that we shouldn't delete the information (it's well-sourced & therefore an asset to WP), but maybe we should move it to another page specifically dealing with abuse or putative abuse?  I think it would be beneficial to see some prominent examples of animal experiments like I suggested above, so people get an idea of what may be involved in any given experiment.Mokele (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a mistake to move it to a separate page, per WP:CFORK. It would end up becoming a POV page for anti-science POV, and we have too many of those as it is. Better would be to deal with both sides of the coin here, which is actually what you started to describe in your first comment. First, the present section should be renamed more accurately as "Prominent abuse cases". Then, a section should be added with prominent examples of beneficial experiments. That latter one is obviously more work, but WP:There is no deadline, and that's the way things work here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I meant moving them to a page that already exists on the topic, but that also does present problems, you're right. I think your plan is a good one, but the first metric should be defining "prominent" - otherwise I could just cut and paste that last 40 years of the New England Journal of Medicine, increasing the page size 300-fold while still barely scratching the surface.  The same for abuse cases - this isn't really the home for every case, major or minor or unsubstantiated.  Maybe the "top 5" of each as a good starting point?  Squid axons, frog muscles, fly genetics, zebrafish development, and knockout mice seems like a good list to me, but I'm a physiologist by trade so therefore biased.  I think we should probably stay close to basic science that's yielded large health benefits, since that's pretty central to the arguments that get put forth. Mokele (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is good; we are making good progress here. Alas, I'm basically a physiologist too. I would think your list of five could be modified to better reflect control of infectious disease. I'm pretty sure there are some micro/molecular biology types who watch this page, so I hope they can provide some advice here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Back out edits to lead
The LEAD section should refer roughly proportionally to the material in the page. The Fbrnabr edits, while referenced, distorted the LEAD from its prior balance - a balance which had been carefully sought and fought over. Including that much PRO-testing advocacy in the lead will require space for rebuttal - and the page will degenerate into a fight over advocacy. Advocacy has its place - pro AND con - but this page is about the use of animals in testing, teaching, and research, and not principally about advocacy. --Animalresearcher (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Rklawton (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although this article is not supposedly a pro AND con article I find that it is strongly biased towards con views. It would not require much extra space to provide facts on the number of medical cures/drugs and nobel prizes attained through animal testing --Timmyoz (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's discussed a bit in "Prominent cases" further down this page. I've been meaning to add stuff, but haven't had the time.  If you can add it, go right ahead. Mokele (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead Sentence
I find this terminology a bit strange:
 * "Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments". (my bolding)

Is "non-human animals" a standard terminology used in animal testing nowdays? (Í've seen it used elsewhere in a similar context.) To me it seems a bit POV, 'left-wing', 'politically correct'. Are we equating humans to animals here? Sorry for being 'specie-ist' but wouldn't plain 'animal' do? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "used in animal testing"
 * Wikipedia is for laypeople, not (only) people in the animal testing industry. If a person already clearly understood what it is, they wouldn't be here.  I don't see a problem with being clear. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that this answers my question. Surely 'animal' means 'non-human'? That seems clear to me. And I am a layperson not involved in animal testing. My question still, is 'non-human animals' a common term in this context? To me adding to animal is mere 'puffery'. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Surely 'animal' means 'non-human'?"
 * No, that is a subject of debate, or depends on your viewpoint. See our animal.  Nine characters is a small price to pay for clarity. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-human animal is clear. Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Non-human animal" is the standard term, both in the science and bureaucracy of this topic. There's also no controversy - humans are animals, and to claim otherwise is like claiming flowers aren't plants. Mokele (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not define words; dictionaries define words. The usage of the term "animal" in animal testing already implies non-human animals. Not one person in the world would be confused to think this applied to testing of humans, so there is no point in arguing that clarity applies. --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we yet have consensus to change the sentence. I agree with Reisio, Bob, and Mokele, that the descriptor is helpful. There is "animal testing" and "clinical testing". Although I agree that it is fairly obvious that this page is about only those animals that are non-human, I see it as a matter of precision of language to spell it out, and I do not think it creates any problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the 'variety' of replies. Mokele seems to have answered my original question, though I still feel 'animal' on it's own is sufficient. I am also feeling that I may have been better off not asking the question in the first place. I was not aware when I asked, of the depth of feeling in this area of Wikipedia. I was not making any claims, trying to be controversial, 'stir the pot' or make a point. Just a simple question (I thought) about terminology. It seems I have perhaps got involved in an existing 'controversy', as I wasn't suggesting changing the sentence. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel any regrets about bringing it up. I hope you always feel welcome to take part in Wikipedia. This is just one of those things where different editors have different views, and I'm sure no one has any negative feelings about discussing it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I may just go back to 'less' controversial subjects like allegations of 'ímproper conduct', made recently against a highly placed swimming coach in Australia. When I updated the persons Bio. it hardly raised a murmur! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy editing! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you first ask - "Is it unclear?" - I think the answer is no. The title of the page is not non-human animal testing, nor has anyone ever posted anything under that topic anywhere. Dictionary definitions include both humans as animals (strictly speaking in terms of whether a species belongs to the animal kingdom), but also a common usage of animals to refer to species that are animals but not humans. The rationale for including the modifier non-human on animals is that you want to remind the reader that humans are animals, too. In other words, this is an issue of WP:NPOV, and not an issue of clarity.--Animalresearcher (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Well, that's a first, someone thinking that I have an anti-research POV!) The way I see it, the wording does not serve to remind the reader that humans are animals too, but to remind the reader that research is done on animals and not just on humans. I think that your reversion is against consensus, but I will not revert you, pending further talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I *will* revert it, however. The plain fact is that "animal" includes humans. If you want to disagree, find me a source that classifies humans as plants of fungi.  Until then, stop vandalizing the page over your silly semantic quibble. Mokele (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but in fairness, that was not vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you use a dictionary, there are multiple definitions of "animal". Most of the definitions, when not used in a scientific context (as in talking about classification of species) imply non-human. Please, go look up the defintions! The animals covered by the page are enumerated in the next sentence - from zebrafish to non-human primates. The fact that non-human primates are mentioned in the next sentence, and humans are not, already tells the reader that human testing will not be covered. There is NO issue of clarity if no one would be confused by the usage of the term without the "non-human" modifier, and I contend that is the case here. This is a case of "Omit needless words" in the Strunk and White sense. the only rationale for including the modifier "non-human" is to redundantly remind the reader that humans are animals, too. --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Animalresearcher - I understand the point you're making and would agree with you if the "non-human" were used throughout or elsewhere in the article. I think in this case, it clarifies the topic since in vivo research is mentioned in the same sentence which might imply humans to some. The non-human is also notable since right after this, the article discusses various species used, so mentioning one as always excluded seems equally notable. Bob98133 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-human is used in the next sentence, and EVERYWHERE that primates are mentioned! --Animalresearcher (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Animalresearcher on this. The article is "Animal testing", and I don't believe English speakers would ever consider humans in this context.  As a result, any use of the term "non-human" in this article is inappropriate, for if it is specified in one section, it's omission would be marked in others, and so it is preferable to omit it entirely.  Rklawton (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps changing the article title to "Non-human animal testing" would be fairer and also simultaneously let readers know the point of view of the authors. I think that's a great idea. Haber (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not enthusiastic about that rename. It does occur to me that, if we delete the words, the sentence essentially becomes: "Animal testing... is the use of animals in experiments." (with the also-known-as in the ellipsis). That seems like saying next to nothing. As a long-time animal researcher myself, and as someone who has very sensitive radar for anti-research POV, I continue to be puzzled by the perception that this particular wording is POV. As for the issue of saying it in one sentence, but not in others, I would think that saying it once conveys the information, that then need not be repeated endlessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Haber was being sarcastic. I don't think anyone would support the rename, yet the issue at hand is almost identical. That's the point. You seem to think the most significant contribution of the first sentence is to tell the reader that the page does not cover humans. I think, and I think the english language supports me, that point is already abundantly clear. Why not "Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of animals, from zebrafish to non-human primates, in experiments. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide are used annually." This wording avoids the silly use of "non-human animals", cleans up the second sentence, and conveys the same points.--Animalresearcher (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent suggestion! It's really much better than what the page says now, and it makes the argument here moot, in that "... to non-human primates" leaves no ambiguity at all. There's only one, relatively minor, point that I would tweak. In the current version of the page, "from zebrafish... " refers to vertebrate animals, whereas the new version would be discussing all animals used in experimentation, so we would need to say something about invertebrates. I'm thinking something like "from nematodes through zebrafish to non-human primates". I'm not sure if nematodes (as in C. elegans) are the right choice though. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that the construct "from ______ to ______" conveys no real information beyond the two species, and is an intellectually lazy reference to the antiquated "Scala Naturae" way of thinking. I might as well say "from sponges to fish", since, if you just plot the phylogenetic tree right, that can bracket all animals, including humans.  Call me picky, but I don't think we should compromise accuracy and perpetuate outdated concepts in favor of minor quibbles over readability. Mokele (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That point exists whether the page reads as it currently does, or whether it is changed as I suggested. It makes no difference. --Animalresearcher (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, actually, it doesn't. If you say "non-human animals", I can immediately know what species are included (every animal except humans).  The silly "from nematodes to non-human primates" gives no such clarity.  Are we talking about triploblasts only?  Is work on sponges "animal experimentation"?  They're not included in your scale.  Do you just mean Deuterostomata and Ecdysozoa, but not Lophotrochozoa?  Ctenophora?  Even if you sepcify "sponges to non-human primates", it still relies upon a completely arbitrary scala naturae.  Face it, it's a bad choice of phrase, and I'll revert any attempt to include any "from ____ to _____" Mokele (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorta makes it hard to AGF. Especially when you reverted a from ___ to ____ and replaced it with a different, worse, and equally arbitrary one. --Animalresearcher (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How is "non-human animal" arbitrary? It's the technically accurate term for the scope of the article which, in less than 20 characters, completely conveys which species are within the scope.  I'm only suggesting we prefer accuracy over vernacular definitions and literary devices which rely on obsolete concepts. Mokele (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarity
I restored the original term "non-human animal" because I believe it is shorter, simpler and clearer than the other language, which assumes an undefined sequence (from X to Y). Crum375 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, it seems to me that the wording that Animalresearcher had provided, before it was reverted, was better than what we have now. The very inclusive "from invertebrates... " (which is much simpler and more accurate than the nematode wording I was trying out above) is superior to the wording about zebrafish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, how is it hard to understand this? Any "from____ to ____" is poor phrasing, unscientific, uninformative, and actively perpetuates an obsolete concept. Pretty words are not more important than accuracy. If you do not understand this concept, go back to editing Family Guy episode summaries. An encyclopedia which is not accurate is worthless, however 'readable' it is.Mokele (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. For some reason, there are people here who feel uncomfortable to be called "an animal", and they transfer this POV (or religion?) to articles. If you look up animal, you'll realize that humans are animals. The first mention of "animal" must clarify that "animal testing" is for non-human animals. Anything else is unscientific and incorrect. Crum375 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here edit Family Guy? I don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't define words. Dictionaries define words. Webster defines the term "animal model". It SPECIFICALLY refers only to non-humans in its use of animals. This is entirely comparable to the use in the term animal testing., It also defines the term "animal control", which, once again, does not refer to humans, and no one is confused. It would appear that some wikipedia editors want to re-define the word animal by usage. --Animalresearcher (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Scientific definitions take precedence over dictionary definitions. Dictionaries define "toad" as "any warty amphibian similar to a frog", which is just plain wrong, and just about every other entry for a vernacular term of a taxon either supports me by specifically defining them by scientific classification, gets it wrong, or both.  Scientific terms always take precedence over dictionary definitions. Mokele (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just came across this argument, and I have to ask this to those opposed to the “non-human animals” wording, since I don’t think this was answered (though I haven’t read all the comments): How is “non-human animals” (meaning any and all animals that are not homo sapiens) less clear than a more wordy list or range of the same? —Frungi (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, how do you define a "range"? Brain size? Crum375 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a word list then? Clearly not all animals are subject to testing. A word list can sample from the prominent and common animal models (note I did not need to say non-human animal models and you were not confused). C. Elegans, zebrafish rats and mice, non-human primates?--Animalresearcher (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean like the list I just added? Also, just about any animal that's accessible is subject to testing, not just a handful of model organisms.  I've worked with nearly two dozen species in 5 classes so far, without even touching a model species, and I'm about to double or triple that in just one study.  And I'm *far* from broad in my focus - plenty of folks put me to shame. Mokele (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly I meant without the non-human modifier. There are LOTS of animals not subject to animal testing, and humans are only one of them. We could change the name to "non-elephant-seal animal testing." Or maybe "non-giant-panda animal testing". "Non-zebra animal testing"? --Animalresearcher (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You clearly don't get out into the comparative literature much, do you? I can find examples of experiments on just about anything, including all three of those species, on whales, on sponges, on tardigrades, on scorpions, on hagfish, on anemones, on starfish, on gibbons, on bats, on gliding frogs, on sea squirts, on tapeworms, on spiders...anything.  The only barriers are technology and accessibility, both of which can be overcome in time.  "Animal testing" does not rule out *any* species except one - humans.  True, some species are harder to get at because they're endangered, lethally dangerous, the size of a house, etc., but even these can be experimented on with the right methods (non-invasive methods, telemetry, etc.).  Hell, I can do animal experiments on Lonesome George, the last of his kind, providing it's something non-invasive like force-plate measurements as he walks.  I could do feeding mechanics experiments with coelacanths with a submersible, bait, a video camera (and more money than God).  The only species which *cannot* come under the scope of 'animal testing' is humans. Mokele (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the lead is fairly concise the way it is now. Animalresaercher - the only way that I could agree with removing or somehow replacing the non-human would be to include humans in animal testing, but then add that this is generally, but not always historically, considered unethical. In that case, animal testing would include all animals, including humans. I think this would make things more confusing, since then advertising, surveys, vaccine trials, and other human studies would fall within the purview of this article. This text has been in place for more than a year, why has it suddenly become controversial? Bob98133 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I, too, am satisfied with it as is. Just to be clear: I fully understand that some editors feel that "non-human" conveys an animal rights-leaning POV by drawing attention to something that is already obvious. And, I fully understand that some other editors feel that constructions along the lines of "from X to Y" are scientifically imprecise and substitute good-sounding words for accuracy. Truly, I understand all of that. But I'm not persuaded. It's fine the way it is now, and not worth arguing about. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)