Talk:Animal testing
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theAnimal testing article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines ·PubMed ·Cochrane ·DOAJ ·Gale ·OpenMD ·ScienceDirect ·Springer ·Trip ·Wiley ·TWL |
Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11Auto-archiving period:12 months  |
 | The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be indispute. 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 aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this articlemay be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer toWikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content andoptions for not seeing an image. |
| This page isnot a forum for general discussion aboutAnimal testing. Any such commentsmay be removed orrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions aboutAnimal testing at theReference desk. |
 | Animal testing has been listed as one of theNatural sciences good articles under thegood article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so.If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This level-5 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On January 2016, it was proposed that this article bemoved fromAnimal testing toAnimal research. The result ofthe discussion wasnot moved. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon 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 availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Moore4jp (article contribs).
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
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]
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]
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].
— The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation (2015)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046
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.
— Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically (2014)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013765
...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.
— Drug delivery systems for ovarian cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies (2015)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690347
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.
— A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research (2012)https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511845
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
