Template talk:Animal testing

Advocates

Why is Beverley Sills included? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. It would appear she is the chair of the March of Dimes Foundation [1] and was awarded the "Albert. B. Sabin Heroes of Science Award" by Americans for Medical Progress. That suggests she probably is an advocate. Oddly though, i found this PETA document [2] (pdf) which quotes under the headline "Animals need you now!":

"Don’t worry that you won’t know the perfect thing to say or do or that the task is overwhelming — just do it! Beverly Sills said, “You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don’t try."

I guess there either must be another notable Beverley Sills, or she had a change of heart. The alternative - that PETA would manipulate the context of a quote of an animal advocate to suit its own agenda - is surely unthinkable! ;) Rockpocket 07:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not keen at all on having a list of purported advocates of testing in this box. Firstly, the actual number of people who advocate testing must be virtually innumerable, certainly far too many to fit here and second its framed like some sort of indictment, like those abortion doctor lists that extremist whackos use to intimidate people.--Deglr6328 11:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder where you get the idea that this template was created by an "extremist whacko"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not at all say that. It is reminiscent of an indictment roster of that sort especially when there is no eqivalent list of people against testing. I think the list is incapable of ever even approaching completeness and even if it were, a sidebox is no place for such a thing. --Deglr6328 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Animal_liberation There is a huge controversy over animal experimentation. Prominent members on both sides are identified in these templates. Of course not everyone is listable, but that doesn't take away from the inherent value in letting people easily identify persons, issues, and ethical arguments used by ALL POVs in the controversy. If the animal liberation template hadn't pre-existed, I would not have created the animal testing advocacy one. Why doesn't SV explain why she made that template Sept a year ago? --Animalresearcher 10:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Gary Francione, the natural of rights is that there are non-negotiable claims by the rights holder. In this case, whether or not they can claim these rights, the rights of nonhumans cannot be traded away for merely consequentialist outcomes. Now, vegan dietary advocates COULD be motivated in an array of different ways, for an array of different reasons, and not harming animals for food would be one likely, predictable outcome from not eating animals for food. More nonhuman animals are harmed for food production than harms of nonhuman persons for all other reasons. However, an advocate of animal rights rather than merely of animal welfare would be one who insists that no use of unconsenting persons, nonhuman OR human, would be morally permissible (even if unavoidable). See nonhuman animals ethics. I see NO REASON to include in any list any human who is merely a supporter of animal welfare, including Peter Singer, whose advocacy as a consequentialist is for improving the overall amount of good over ill, where he is willing to trade away the proclaimed rights of rights holders for purposes he accepts as legitimate. MaynardClark (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Research centres?

Any thoughts on whether this template should be added to notable research centres like the Oregon National Primate Research Center? Rockpocket 10:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd thought articles focussed on advocacy or controversy would be good places...placing it with every research center seems a little too much, at least to me. I would think it would be largely restricted to the related articles contained in the template itself. --Animalresearcher 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the template looks a bit POV, and placing it on centers such as the ONPRC makes it look like it is violating NPOV. That's why I came here after it was added to that article. The article does need an infobox, but it should not be this one. Aboutmovies 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

John Edward Porter

I found John Edward Porter to be in the box, he turns out to be a politician, not animal right advocate, can you explain that? Wooyi 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See John Edward Porter#Involvement in Science. Rockpocket 04:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually it was me that made that section, but it only said "medical research", not animal research. Wooyi 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. This is indeed a problem. Those critical of animal experimentation describe Americans for Medical Progress, for example, as a pro-testing group because they support medical research in its current form (which involves extensive use of animals). It follows therefore, that those individuals that advocate medical science (in its current form) are by default advocates of animal experimentation. It appears that one has to purposely speak out against animal testing in medical science before one is excused the label of vivisector or a supporter thereof. I'm not saying I personally agree with this classification, but it tends to be how it shakes down in the face of the strong anti-testing lobby on Wikipedia. Rockpocket 06:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He has also received the Albert Sabin Hero of Science Award from Americans for Medical Progress for his consistent advocacy for medical research. American for Medical Progress is essentially a group advocating for the use of animals in research in its current form, and the Albert Sabin Hero medals are given to people who help. Porter led the charge to double the budget at NIH from 1998 through 2003, and has been integrally involved in political oversight of NIH and in advocacy of medical science in general, and specifically of the use of animals. --Animalresearcher 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

image

I don't think this particular image works well to illustrate animal research advocacy. It looks like 2 pet dogs chained up, not exactly the image you want to leave with people learning more about the subject.AALAS 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed as well, I propose Image:Rodent52copy.jpg to replace the current image, anyone agree? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a better image, but it isn't free. It has to be attributed. Rockpocket 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:NASAchimp.jpg? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I like that image. Rockpocket 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That image is better, but it's still kind of scary looking if you don't know what's going on. Since rodents are the majority of the animals used in research, I think that would be the best route. I'm not trying to be a nuisance, just offering my opinion. AALAS 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

AALAS can provide a rodent image to use in the table. Are there particular specifications required?AALAS 15:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mouse white background.jpg might do the trick. Rockpocket 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rodent.gif I just uploaded this image. What do you think? AALAS 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rockpocket 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week

World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week is this coming week (April 22nd - 28th, 2007), so we can probably expect extra vandalism on this and associated pages. Be vigilant. Rockpocket 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They vandalized the AALAS page too. Does anyone have any tips for dealing with this? AALAS 19:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on it. If the vandalism gets too frequent, I can semi-protect it for the week. Rockpocket 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! 199.72.46.61 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA

The American Medical Association is a staunch opponent of groups that oppose the use of animals in research. They regularly pass official policy statements condemning the actions of those groups that oppose the humane use of animals in medical research. They regularly run editorials in their journal, JAMA, which is one of the most read medical journals in the world, that reinforce their position over and over again. They do more to defend humane animal research than RDS and FBR combined. --Animalresearcher 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't list every organization that supports animal testing and every organization that opposes it. This template is for people and groups that focus on it. The AMA does not exist to promote animal testing. Note that I didn't include PETA for the same reason, because it deals with other issues. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whereas I would certainly agree we cannot list every organization that supports animal testing (like the House of Lords and US Congress), I think it is wise to include the big ones. The AMA is among the biggest, even if it does not exist specifically to oppose groups who oppose humane use of animals in research. FASEB, the American Physiology Society, and SFN all have similar views but much less clout. Also, due to its primary focus, medical care, its stance on the use of animals in research is notable. And if you doubt how ardently it supports the humane use of animals in medical research, peruse its yearly resolutions (one of which is on the PCRM page), and its JAMA editorials on the humane use of animals in research. --Animalresearcher 01:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not AMA is on the list. But, I do find it misleading to habitually associate "humane" and "research." Claims alone do not amount to facts. In order for an implied claim like this to have a high liklihood of being accurate, there would need to be some evidence of AMA taking action in response to reports like Plous (2001) and 10/20/2005 - APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-03-SF.pdf.Rbogle 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to a table about animal testing advocacy? Not a combination of those against and those for animal testing. Zebrafishing 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The animal testing advocacy template was initiated because animal testing pages contained the anti-animal research template aalib, which I felt created a biased POV. So I made the animal testing advocacy template, collected and added to the pages on many of the entries, and added it to relevant pages. Slimvirgin took the animal testing advocacy template, which was created to provide a balanced POV, and intentionally and substantially altered its POV by composing half of it with links that are already on the animal liberation template. As to the AMA, they have official public policy statements, and official analysis papers, that over the years may be quoted as secondary sources. If you have some problem with that, the appropriate response would be to find a secondary source that demonstrates they do not care about whether research is humane, and add it in. That is what making encyclopaedia pages is about, collecting and organizing secondary sources. --Animalresearcher 12:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should edit it back to what it was originally created for. I don't see why having an animal testing advocacy table shouldn't be allowed by SlimVirgin. It's only fair that both points of view should be represented equally - the animal rights point of view is represented in a separate table with no opposing links included. Zebrafishing 13:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs serious paring down

This template is way too long for its typical uses, as a side bar in articles, where it is distracting to the point of being overwhelming. On a quick once-over it appears to be 90% redundant with {{Animal rights}}, which as a page-bottom navbox is far less intrusive. I'm tempted to push for a merge or even a TfD, but maybe some rationale can be found for keeping this sidebar and some effort can be made to pare it down to strictly the chief material about animal testing, and the removal of so much of the advocacy and example-itis in it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Animal testing on rabbits

I recently started a small article on this subject (see link), which is still small but properly referenced and factual. I changed the link "Rabbits" in this template to redirect to that article rather than to the specific Draize test article, as no other specific tests are included in this template. Note that the Animal testing on rabbits article mentions and links to the Draize test. Another editor disagrees and feels that the link in this template should still direct to the "Draize test" article directly (with the argument that "this template is for better-developed articles")[3]. I would appreciate some opinions from other editors on this matter. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate version

I have created an alternate version of this template in the Navbox style for when the existing template conflicts with an infobox or other side-bar template as on Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The alternative template can be found at {{Animal testing navbox}}. Road Wizard (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More of a balance in organisations

There is a 10-6 bias towards anti-vivisection organisations (assuming the Boyd group is neutral). Can I suggest adding Understanding Animal Research (the organisation which has replaced Research Defence Society and Coalition for Medical Progress) and Speaking of Research(the US Pro-Test style group). As far as removing one of the anti-vivisection groups I would suggest NAVS, who appear to be somewhat quieter in the UK these days. London prophet (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Excessive vertical nav-box

Hi, I have come across this nav box on a couple of Biographies of living people where the nav box first looked like an info box and I thought the subject of the article was the hamster, I think the nav box would be better in these cases if it was at the bottom of the article, less obtrusive, I was wondering what conflicts would arise if I added an info box to the BLP? Please comment. Off2riorob (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We do have one for the bottom of articles, in case this one looks inappropriate for whatever reason, so please feel free to use it instead. See Template:Atestingend. I like the idea of you thinking the hamster was the subject (though I think it's a mouse). :) SlimVirgin 08:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha, thanks very much SlimVirgin, I will have a look at that. Yes, for a BLP that seems a lot better. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any difference to {{Animal testing navbox}}, other than the documentation section? If they are the same one should redirect to the other. Road Wizard (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)