The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
Animal testing is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alissapalushi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lindsph.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Moore4jp (article contribs).
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[muscle contraction#Force-length and force-velocity relationships|muscle physiology]] The anchor (#Force-length and force-velocity relationships) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'd like to supplement this article with a list of Systematic Reviews (SR's) and Meta-Studies (MS's). Unfortunately the few that are mentioned do not seem to be accurately represented (e.g. this article states: 'such studies can be difficult to interpret, and it is argued that they are not always comparable to human diseases' but the paper cited for this claim actually states: 'Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews'). Every SR and MS I could find is critical of animal testing, so the proposed article is titled 'Animal Testing: Contrary Scientific Views'. I believe this would contribute to a more informed and robust account of animal testing. If there are objections based on the negative accounts of the SR's and MS's, then if anyone can supply links to publicly verifiable material that is supportive, then those can be included too (I could not find any). Carlduff (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
CaptainEek The problem is "best" studies according to whom? That could result in accusations of cherry picking and synthesising and such. All SR's and MS's I have found are very critical of animal testing, so I simply believe it would make for a more rounded and robust article to acknowledge them, and accurately (hence just listing quotes to avoid accusations of bias). Again, if there are MS's and SR's out there that are supportive, then I would love to know about them. Otherwise, it would also be helpful to accurately reflect the papers that are referenced, such as the one I already mentioned, above. Carlduff (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Carlduff, My metric for best here would be the studies which specifically review the use of animal testing, and are SR/MR. Said reviews should note in them their conclusions on animal testing, which we could then report. Again, using lists of quotes is not our style. We present information using prose whenever possible. That does allow us to summarize what sources are saying. Based on [1], [2], and [3] I might construct the following sentence Systemic reviews have pointed out that animal testing often fails to accurately mirror outcomes in humans. For instance, a 2013 review noted that some 100 vaccines have been shown to prevent HIV in animals, yet none of them have worked on humans. I think I will add this and start a section, which could be expanded upon. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
CaptainEek I think I see where you are going. OK, I believe the "best" (general) articles are:
The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice… animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods… of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated [through animal experiments], only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials [a 99.9% failure rate].
Systematic review and meta-analysis have provided empirical evidence that too many preclinical [i.e. animal] experiments lack methodological rigor, and this leads to inflated treatment effects. There is of course no guarantee that improvements in the validity of preclinical animal studies and reduced publication bias will improve the translational hit of interventions from bench to bedside.
...41% of the studies did not describe the age of their animal model... A general observation in our risk of bias assessment was that the majority of the included studies did not provide sufficient information to assess the risk of bias. The studies did not adequately describe details regarding allocation of animals to the experimental groups, adjustments for baseline differences, concealment of allocation, randomization, blinding and addressing incomplete outcome data.
These deficiencies in the reporting of animal study design, which are clearly widespread, raise the concern that the reviewers of these studies could not adequately identify potential limitations in the experimental design and/or data analysis, limiting the benefit of the findings...Numerous publications have called attention to the lack of transparency in reporting, yet studies in the life sciences in general, and in animals in particular, still often lack adequate reporting on the design, conduct and analysis of the experiments.
Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence…However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation.
— A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible (2010) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20507187
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alissapalushi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lindsph.
