Talk:Draize test/Archive 1

Archive 1

Error

In the article this sentence appears to be in error Rabbits are more susceptible to damage (alkaline) materials, because the pH of their aqueous humor is .82 compared to .71-.73 for man. A pH of < 1 is extremely acidic. I am not sure what the correct values should be to correct the sentence

Richard 1Nov05

Picture and source

Picture at top of page purporting to show rabbit undergoing Draize eye test removed. This is clearly a rabbit with some sort of eye infection, NOT the Draize test, despite claims of antivivisection groups. 217.206.196.219 17:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The source says it's the Draize test. What exactly makes you think it isn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am skeptical about the origin of the image of this rabbit. This animal does not appear to be an albino laboratory animal as would be used in Draize testing. It looks like a pet rabbit that had dye painted around its eye. If the animal shown in the Draize test article was used in a laboratory test, it should be possible to verify this. We need to know the laboratory, the substance tested, and the date of the test. It would then be possible to contact the lab for verification. The Draize test involves 0.1 mL of a test solution (for example, see). There is also a "low volume" version of the eye irritation test that uses 0.01 mL. The standard Draize volume is the size of a small faucet drip. Use of the test is required by some United States regulatory agencies and is described in 16 CFR 1500.42. Several decades ago the United States printed an "Illustrated Guide for Grading Eye Irritation by Hazardous Substances" and copies should be available in research libraries of major universities. A digitized scan or a digital camera image of one or more of the pictures in that guide should provide public domain images that would be suitable for this Wikipedia article. --JWSchmidt 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave my reasons for removing the picture in the edit summary. To answer SlimVirgin's question more fully, I investigated this picture in 1997 when it was used on the front page of The Independent, a national UK newspaper. I received information from a leading toxicologist that this picture did not illustrate the Draize test. I have now checked the correspondence files. The Independent attributed the picture to PA [Press Association] but the picture editor said subsequently that it wasn't from PA. So we don't know the original source, or who currently holds the copyright.

The picture has been incorrectly used for about 15 years by animal rights groups as an illustration of Draize eye irritancy testing, and may originate from PETA. You only have to do a Google image search for 'Draize eye' to see its extensive use by these groups, but by virtually no-one else. The source that SlimVirgin quotes [1] is itself an antivivisection group [2]. Unfortunately there is very little by way of published critique of the picture, the best I can find on the web is this [3] from the Three R Research Foundation Switzerland. I am once more contacting experts for their views on this picture, and I am in no doubt they will be the same as they were nine years ago, ie that this picture does not represent the Draize test and should not be used in this way.

I also found a good, if brief, online description of the Draize eye test from the Australia and New Zealand organisation ANZCCART [4]. Fuller details of the test are in the OECD and EC guidelines. These sources and those given by JWSchmidt above should be checked and the whole page reviewed for accuracy. If it remains unchanged it should carry a npov warning. 217.206.196.218 10:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. If the Independent carried it, that counts as a good source for us in terms of its accuracy. We only have your word for it that the origin is unknown. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Without the name of the laboratory that performed the test, the substance tested, and the date of the test, we cannot hope to verify the image. The image should be removed. --JWSchmidt 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

First, it is unlikely that any laboratory would say 'oh yes, that is one of our rabbits'. Second, unless someone can find a source stating that it is not a draize rabbit, and is a reliable source - not from original research (asking people 'in the know') then the picture, as it stands, is fine.

However, if someone can find a 'better' picture then suggest it here. -localzuk 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, that is not the way it works. There is no verifiable information about the copyright holder of this image. There is no evidence that this is even a laboratory animal. The rabbit does not look like an albino. This image should not be used until it can be verified. It is up to people who want to use this image provide information that allows verification. There is no obligation to find an alternative image before this one is removed. --JWSchmidt 15:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, it is copyright the site that it was retrieved from. You must provide proof that it isn't theirs - as it is currently claimed. The information is as stands

1. The site it was retrieved from states it is copyright free
2. The site it was retrieved from states it is of a draize test rabit.

What I am saying is that unless either of these can be disproven by another source, it has no reason to be removed. The information as it stands seems to pass the tests of verifiability. As I said before, rather than focus on removing the image, which you seem to be doing, why not focus on finding a replacement. -localzuk 15:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, the website that is cited as the source for this image is a partisan website. We have no reason to trust anything at that website, particularly since the rabbit shown is not of the type used in the Draize test. If that website controls the copyright of the image then they should say so at their website. As far as I can tell, the word copyright is not even present on that website. They should be able to explain who took the picture, where, when, and what experiment the animal was used in. If they did so, we could then verify that the test actually took place. None of this information is available, so the image is not verifiable. Wikipedia does not take pictures of aliens from fringe UFOlogy websites, put them in the extraterrestrial article and claim that they are pictures of aliens. If you want to use this image, it is up to you to provide a means to verify it before it is used. "why not focus on finding a replacement" <-- If you want to include an image in this article, it is up to you to find a verifiable replacement. --JWSchmidt 16:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To add to this, Animal Aid published the picture in their 'Why Animal Rights' p5 in 1990, and attributed it to PETA. Advocates for Animals published it in their 'Annual Pictorial Review' 1991, page 35, again attributed to PETA. These predate the web site which claims to be the source. Both captions refer to cosmetics testing, but not the Draize test specifically. A replacement which showed a rabbit undergoing the Draize test would just show a normal albino rabbit, because the Draize test as currently conducted would not reveal any gross abnormal effects. Only substances that are not expected to cause irritation are tested, so most of them don't have any effect, others produce minor changes in the cornea which would only be recognised by an expert and on close examination. 217.206.196.218 16:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobel prize winner Professor Sir Andrew Huxley has a letter [5] in this week's Nature journal describing, inter alia, how the Draize eye test is carried out today. I'm quoting this in the article as it provides a useful balance to antivivisectionist Kaufman's view. 217.206.196.219 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Template

Why did SlimVirgin add the animal rights/animal liberation template to this article? It doesn't seem relevant, and because it only provides links to one POV it destroys the balance that we are attempting to achieve in this article. 217.206.196.218 10:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The article discusses the animal rights angle to the Draize Test, so including it seems appropriate to me. If the article were to just cover one side and another article covered, say, 'Draize test controversy' then it wouldn't be on this page. As it is, it seems fine.

Also, the template does not provide only one POV as it links to articles filled with anti-animal rights information.-Localzuk (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My revert

MS, I reverted your edits, because the RDS is unquestionably pro-testing, and as both sides are "pro-research," it makes no sense to apply that expression to one side only. The dividing line here is between those who support animal testing and those who do not, so it makes sense to split the comments into those categories.

As for your edits to the intro, you can add to the pro-testing section that the test has changed if you'd like to expand on that, but it can't go into the intro as though it's an undisputed fact. Indeed, the letter I believe you added from Huxley was in response to Nature publishing that the Draize test has not changed since the 1940s. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RDS is not pro-testing, does not "support" animal testing. You can't characterise the debate in terms of black and white. The RDS position is that it wishes for an end to animal research (testing), but only when good alternatives have been developed. Pro-research was the nearest term I could find to describe that position.

SlimVirgin, did you look at the link provided to the UK government guidance on the Draize test? I would say it is more factual to put your description the past tense than in the present tense. The link is good evidence of how the test is carried out today. I assume you are relying on the claims of antivivisection groups - why do you believe they are "undisputed fact"? I note the intro content is unsourced. Furthermore, that whole Nature article was ill-informed. MedicalScientist 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided to the UK govt position was just an answer in the H of C, and a very uninformative one: "Such animal testing takes place only when in vitro screening tests have been used to ... eliminate materials with obvious [weasel word] irritant potential [not defined]. Careful consideration [not defined] is given to all available [weasel word] information on a substance to avoid testing of substances likely [not defined] to produce severe [not defined] effects on test animals ..."

There would be no need for the tests if only very mild substances were tested. Heck, you could drip them into your own eyes if that were true.

The substances tested on animals are those which have been shown to be mild in standard chemical tests, eg neither low nor high pH, not related to substances known to be irritants etc. In the absence of a good alternative (as opposed to pre-screens), they still have to be tested on animals in case they show unexpecged irritant effects in the eye.

This is semantics. The term 'mild' conjures up imagery of non-irritating substances whereas it actually means neutral(ish) ph, not known to be an irritant. This is confusing and should be defined in the article as many people will not understand this. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As for RDS being pro-testing, it's important not to get into the euphemism game, as with abortion where we have to say pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, and pro-life instead of anti-abortion. RDS is without doubt in favor of allowing animal testing, regardless of whatever qualifications they want to add to that (until such time as alternatives are developed etc etc). And the opposing position is to oppose animal testing regardless of whether alternatives are available. Those two positions invariably present the supposed facts differently, and often radically so, so it makes sense to make clear where the claims are coming from.

Neither pro testing nor antivivisection are accurate descriptions. RDS is also against vivisection, but believes that it is not possible to eliminate all animal testing (research) immediately. You may believe it is "in favour of allowing animal testing" but that is not the same as being "pro testing". Being "pro-testing" means being against three Rs initiatives, which RDS is not. Similarly, I think antivivisectionists should more accurately be called abolitionists, but they choose to call themselves antivivisectionists, so I accept that term.

Unless you can come up with a suitable descriptor, I intend to change Pro Testing back to Pro Research, or even Pro Choice. I think Pro Choice is accurate in relation to abortion. No-one is Pro Abortion, although they may say it should be allowed under restricted circumstances. Same situation with animal research. MedicalScientist 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The point, as I see it, is that 'Pro Research' indicates that the opposite (ie. antivivisectionists) are anti-research. This is a bad inference to make and as such should not be made. Stating that they are pro-testing is accurate as would be 'pro animal research'. If you chose 'Pro Choice' I would revert very quickly as that term is already weighted in the abortion debate and has no place on this article.-Localzuk ^(talk) 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that neither pro testing nor antivivisection accurately characterise the positions in this debate. Nearly everyone is antivivisection, but some/many people believe animal research and testing is necessary. The problem has arisen with SlimVirgin's insertion of meaningless and inaccurate subtitles. The easiest solution, in the absence of more accurate wording, is to delete the subheads. MedicalScientist 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's your opinion that the Nature article was misinformed, but it counts as a reputable source for Wikipedia, and it takes the view that the Draize test has not changed since the 1940s. If you have evidence that the test has changed signficantly wherever it's used (not confined to what you believe happens in the UK, from a source other than the RDS, and explaining exactly how it has changed), by all means produce it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was the opinion of many people, especially toxicologists, that the article was misinformed. But I know that counts for nothing here - it's regarded as hearsay or personal research or whatever. So all we have so far in terms of a published source is the letter from Huxley, apparently representing expert opinion. It is difficult to find reliable web sources, but I intend to find the evidence you request. MedicalScientist 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We also have the Nature article itself as a published source. Sources don't have to be available on the Web. And there's no indication that Huxley represents anyone other than himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite. That's why I'm going to find the published evidence required. MedicalScientist 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

First, have you read the 10 November Nature article? It's only a caption to an old grainy unsourced b&w picture which opines "tests that put chemicals into the eyes of rabbits have changed little since the 1940s". This picture, which may not even depict Draize testing (rabbits used to be held in stocks for pyrogenicity tests, not Draize eye tests) is only used in the print journal, not on the Nature web site. A quick search reveals three reputable online sources (see below) that show the Draize eye test (and incidentaly the skin test) has been modified and refined over the last decade.

Take a look at Johns Hopkins Altweb [6] which says "The Draize eye irritancy test uses rabbits to estimate the ability of a test substance to irritate or damage the eye. This involves putting the test substance into one of the rabbit's eyes and then scoring changes in various parts of the eye as compared to the untreated eye over a 7-day period. This test was the subject of a major protest campaign in 1980, which ultimately led to substantial changes in the cosmetics industry and to greatly increased efforts toward the development of non-animal alternatives. Many companies no longer use the Draize test at all, though non-animal methods have not yet replaced it altogether. Where it is still used, the number of rabbits has been reduced dramatically, and the techniques have been refined considerably, using much lower dosages of the test chemicals and providing an anesthetic to ease the pain." Not only does this indicate the 'mildness' of the test currently, but it also says it's no longer widely used. The intro here refers to a "common" test, which it clearly isn't.

MSPCA-Angell [7] says "The Draize test is used to determine the irritancy of substances such as shampoos or household cleaners that could accidentally drip or be sprayed into human eyes. It involves placing a test substance into one eye of several rabbits, then checking the eyes at various intervals to assess any damage. The low-volume eye test (LVET) uses one-tenth of the amount of the substance. It reduces the potential for pain and discomfort and is more predictive of possible human eye irritation because it more closely simulates human experience than does the standard Draize test. Animal use for eye irritancy tests has fallen by an estimated 85 to 90 percent as computer use for storing and exchanging information has increased, and as new in vitro tests have been developed that screen out potentially irritating substances before they are tested on animals. New and more effective pain-relieving drugs are being used at many research institutions to alleviate post-surgical distress."

Last, a paper in The ILAR Journal [8] published by the US National Academy of Science discusses modified Draize test protocols included in the current OECD Guidleine 405, revised and adopted in 2001.

All three pieces use moderate language and accurate descriptions which should be a model for Wikipedia articles. I hope this small sample is sufficient evidence to show that protocols for Draize eye and skin tests have been refined and improved over the last decade or so. MedicalScientist 09:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw you tell Rockpocket that I was "ignoring" this material, when in fact I have only just seen it. I'll read it later today. Thank you for finding it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

New Image?

I found this image, it says it has no copyright and it claims it is from a rabbit that has undergone a Draize test. Maybe we can post this one instead? Nrets 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We're not allowed to use material posted on bulletin boards by anonymous people. See WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that, my point is that anybody can post any kind of picture on their website and claim anything they want about it, like that its eyes are red because it was a victim of a test and not because it is an albino rabbit. Nrets 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They can, as can newspapers or books. We use material from established websites, book publishers, and newspapers, where the key is the extent to which there is editorial oversight. We satisfy ourselves that there is, and after that we don't get involved in investigating whether they are right or wrong. See WP:NOR. Can I request again that you read our content policies carefully, and then keep them on hand to refer to? Practically all my replies to you are convered by our policies. Once again, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My deletion

I deleted the sentence added by Nrets claiming the test has declined and has been replaced, when the links showed only that less of the substance is dripped in rabbits' eyes. Also, in future, please be more specific about which country you're talking about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The sources do say specifically that, at least in the US the use of the test has declined:

• From the Hopkins site: Many companies no longer use the Draize test at all, though non-animal methods have not yet replaced it altogether. Where it is still used, the number of rabbits has been reduced dramatically, and the techniques have been refined considerably, using much lower dosages of the test chemicals and providing an anesthetic to ease the pain.

• From the MSPCA: The low-volume eye test (LVET) uses one-tenth of the amount of the substance. It reduces the potential for pain and discomfort and is more predictive of possible human eye irritation because it more closely simulates human experience than does the standard Draize test.

Animal use for eye irritancy tests has fallen by an estimated 85 to 90 percent as computer use for storing and exchanging information has increased, and as new in vitro tests have been developed that screen out potentially irritating substances before they are tested on animals.

• From ILAR: The revised OECD guidelines also suggest that data on skin irritation or corrosion can be obtained from other animal studies. For instance, it may be possible to determine the irritation potential, or lack of irritation potential, by reviewing the results of a dermal toxicity study. In addition, if a material is highly toxic by the dermal route, it is not necessary to assess its irritation potential also.

Maybe the last one is not quite as direct, so I'll remove this source. Nrets 20:08, 17

February 2006 (UTC)

Please stick very closely to what your sources say. Don't paraphrase loosely, because often it seems you're seeing what you want to see. If in doubt about how to paraphrase something, quote them instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of sticking close to sources, could you show me where in the 3R source the Draize evaluation is considered "subjective"? I can't find that word. It seems to me there is variation between lab results, but it is not clear to me whether that difference is due to subjective scoring or experimental variance in objective scoring. I also can't find the quote: "a lot of stress for the animals tested and result in considerable pain for them" on that webpage. I suggest it be cited correctly, or i will remove it. Rockpocket 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked for it too, for other reasons, and can't find it. Either I linked to the wrong page (though I'm fairly sure I didn't), or they have changed their website since I quoted them. However, I can assure you it was a quote, so please give me a few hours (or until tomorrow, please) to find the right link. If I can't find it again, I'll delete it myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, even if you can't find it, there should probably be something said there along those lines, i'll see what i can find also. Rockpocket 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi RP, they have definitely changed their website, because I had kept several links to interesting material on their site about the Draize test in a text editor, and now all the links point to the same page. I'm going to write to them to ask whether that quote is still on the site somewhere. I've removed it in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they moved it because they think their words are being twisted for propaganda purposes!! ;-). As i said, i'm sure we should be able to find similar quotes elsewhere, though perhaps not quite from such a pro-testing source. Rockpocket 18:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Can we have a neutral source please for the description of the test in the Intro? It sounds decidedly antivivisection POV to me. MedicalScientist 17:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how it could be read as POV personally. It states how the experiment is carried out by holding a rabbit still and either putting substances in its eyes or on its bare skin... Could you explain how it is POV? -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In this I agree with Localzuk that it fits any descriptions I've read about the test in its original form. At the end of the intro there is a bit about how either the test has fallen out of favor or has been modified. Nrets 18:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I only looked at the bit that MedicalScientist complained about; the 'description of the test in the Intro', which seems to be just the first sentence. -Localzuk ^(talk) 21:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"In the eye test, the animal is observed for at least three days for signs of redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness and/or blindness in the eyes. After the test, the animals are killed." I think we should have a source for this. MedicalScientist 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Source

Rockpocket, do you have a source for this? "The Draize Test is an animal test devised in 1944 by FDA toxicologist John Henry Draize, initially for testing cosmetics, and which today involves applying 0.5mL or 0.5g of a test substance to an animal's eye or intact skin for 4 hours then observing the results." All the images I've seen of Draize skin tests indicate that the skin is not intact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also not clear what it would mean to apply a substance to an animal's eye for four hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you look through the source cited at the end of the second paragraph, it explains. I believe it also mentions intact skin. As I said before, it would be good to have reliable sources for the first paragraph, too. MedicalScientist 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

From the picture's I've seen, the skin seems to be shaved, but otherwise intact. But an actual source would be better. Nrets 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Its from the source at the end of the paragraph. The 1981 modification of Draize skin protocol means the substance is exposed to intact skin (shaved, but not abraized) for 4 hours then removed. Its not entirely clear to me what the deal is with the eyes, whether they way it out after 4 hours or not, though i think they may use only 0.1mL instead of 0.5mL. If it is different, it might be worth completely separating the description of the two tests. Rockpocket 07:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source that said that the animals were always killed after testing, so I put a citation needed marker next to that sentence at the end of the first paragraph. Please provide a source or delete this sentence. Simonster 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Human vs. Rabbit eyes

Now that RP pointed this out, the part on the human vs. rabbit makes little sense. For one, those studies conclude that rabitt's eyes are more sensitive than human eyes (more permeable, thinner cornea, etc.), thus if something is not an irritant in a rabbit eye, then it more than likely is not an irritant on a human eye. The way that section is written makes little sense since most of those arguments would actually support the view that the data is useful. Second the claim by the ophtalmologist that he never uses Draize test data is a is misleading, since in order to prescribe any approved eye medication it will have already been tested, therefore he is implicitly using the test data. Perhaps we can find a better written criticism of the test's usefulness, or re-write the section? Nrets 15:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statement regarding the opthamologist not using the test data is wrong. Just because by law prescription medicine must be tested does not mean he is using the test data. I'll give an example of a similar situation: Roads often contain gelatine, just because I use roads does not mean I support the use of gelatine in their construction. If anything, it is advantageous to the anti-testing side ie. it could say something like Even though, by law, all opthalmological medicines must be tested using the Draize test, this doctor does not use the data...-Localzuk ^(talk) 17:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The gelatine example you give is not the same, the opthalmologist is not saying whether he supports or doesn't support the use of the Draize test, he is saying he never uses the data. And unless he's the one developing new medications, then his whole statment is completely meaningless. In terms of something being in support of the usefulness of the Draize test I was refering to the first half of my above comment. Nrets 18:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nrets, we're not here to argue the issues. The source has said what he wants to say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing it's a poor choice of source. Nrets 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The point I am making is that he may never directly use the results of the tests, instead basing decisions to use drugs, create new drugs or do new things based on other evidence instead. Just because the law says it has to be done does not mean the data has to be used by the doctors when they do their work.

I think it is a good source, as it provides a view that the opthalmologist's themselves do not use these results - or at least to this guy's knowledge they don't. -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He's an opthalmologist who doesn't use the test and who says he knows of no opthalmologists who do, which is an interesting statement to use. You don't like the source simply because you don't approve of what he says, but unless you're an opthalmologist yourself, you're not in a position to judge that it's wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter whether I approve of what he says or not. In fact I agree with the overall assertion that the Draize test is limited in its usefulness, and I have written so myself. I'm saying that that whole section is misleading beacuse: 1) The arguments made there are easily interpreted as being in support of using the test, 2) To say that opthalmologists don't use Draize data is like saying taxi drivers don't use astronomical charts. Nrets 19:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I've fixed the quote so it makes more sense... Nrets 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason i mentioned it as a paradox was thus: ophthalmologists are physicians, so everytime any ophthalmologist makes a decision on which treatment to use, they are using Draize data indirectly. But since Draize tests are not efficacy tests, ophthalmologists have no reason to use the data directly. That quote has the same information value as Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter saying "As a Nobel Prize winner, with 20 years experience, I have never used Draize data and know no other Nobel Prize winner who has". Both statements tell us either nothing of value, or are misleading, depending on how chartible one wants to be. The changes Nrets made at least give it context, but i still think it is simply linking the title of "ophthalmologist" to an anti statement to make it sound relevent. I also happen to agree regarding the list of differences. I'm not sure what point that is trying to make. It reads to me that rabbit and human eyes are different (hold the front page!) and that rabbit eyes are much better at resisting challenge, which one would assume is exactly why they are used. The logic follows that if a substance irritates the rabbit eye that is better at clearing it, it is likely to irritate a human eye which has less protection. In my opinion, the specific differences simply are not important for this article, but if we wish to keep them, then the relevence should be explained. I would have thought listing the alternatives to Draize testing would be a much better idea. Rockpocket 07:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

Amazing! Are we building an encyclopedia or building an encyclopedia by consensus? Page requires archiving. --Bhadani 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image contention link

The statement that has appeared below the image of the draize test rabbit seems a little strange to me. The reason being is that it isn't the same image, so how can it be stated as a reference. I am removing the link until someone can provide a better one - I do not doubt that the subject of the image has been questioned.-Localzuk ^(talk) 13:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Localzuk, but if you spend more than 15 seconds comparing the two images, you will see that it IS the exact same image which has been flipped and cropped slightly. Please don't make these kinds of changes without discussing first. Nrets 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the image is not the same, the image is completely different - you will notice that there are a huge amount of differences such as:

1. Horizontal Orientation
2. Brightness
3. Contrast
4. Level of extra detail
5. Resolution of image

I think that unless you can provide a site with a reference to the image in use on this site then it is not fair to claim that people are complaining about the authenticity of the image - as they are not, they are in fact complaining about a different image entirely. Either that or the image should be changed to the one you are trying to link with the reference.

I do not doubt that this is the same rabbit, but it is most definitely *not* the same image - as you have pointed out yourself as it is 'flipped and cropped slightly'.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Its the same photograph, it looks like the contrast was digitally enhanced in the WP version aside from flipping it. I was able to align them exactly in photoshop. It's like saying, for example, that a photo is taken of an alien landing in Kansas. Then a newspaper reprints the photo and writes an article about how its not a real alien, that the photo is doctored, etc. Then the person who took the original picture says, well the picture in 'newspaper' is not of a real alien, but the one I took is. I can understand your argument if details such as the graininess of the picture, or the exact orientation were relevant to the points the website was trying to make. But the criticism posed by the website does not depend on the digital changes that were made on the same image. Nrets 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to reflect this. -Localzuk ^(talk) 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

With due respect for your usually excellent contributions to animal experimentation related articles, this really is below you, Localzuk. Of course it is the same source image (even down to the marks in the background). The only difference (apart from he cropping and flipping) as far as i can tell is that the contrast has been enhanced in our version (presumably to make the discolouration around the eye more apparent, making its use even more questionable). Moreover, that rabbit isn't even an albino (as far as i can tell), so it is highly dubious.

Your criticism appears, to me, to be highly pedantic. If that is they way we are going then i would suggest that the subject of the picture is the rabbit. I don't think anyone is questioning that it is an authentic rabbit, therefore the subject is not in question. Either the authenticity of the object is in question or the entire structure is. Rockpocket 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I am no longer having a bad day, I am finishing this up saying I was wrong. Sorry for being annoying and pedantic.-Localzuk ^(talk) 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)