Talk:Vivisection/Archive 1

Vivisection Centres

Why are these places listed? Virtually every university is involved in vivisection. Rosemary Amey 19:10, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I'm really not sure... --NeuronExMachina 08:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is encyclopedic information and it belongs here until the list grows too long, in which case it can be moved to List of vivisection centres or something. G-u-a-k-@ 16:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's POV to put it here. If you want to make a list of places that engage in Animal experimentation that is a possibility, however, as that list will include almost every university and major hospital in the world, i think that list will rapidly find its way to VFD as unmaintainable.--Samuel J. Howard 21:16, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but if almost every university and major hospital is involved in vivisection, we should mention that...
I put back the BPRC and added Huntingdon, since these two are well-known vivisection centers. G-u-a-k-@ 16:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because calling it vivisection is POV when we're in fact talking about a distortive expansion of the meaning of that word to include all sorts of animal experimentation.--21:20, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

cleanup

Woah User:Samuel J. Howard, that was one heck of a clean-up! It's probably better this way, though -- much of it had major NPOV issues, and much of it dealt with animal testing in general, rather than vivisection specifically. --NeuronExMachina 06:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"rv pov edits against consensus to last good version". Which consensus? I think the mentioning 2 of very well known vivisection centers isn't really POV, is it? G-u-a-k-@ 20:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moral concerns are not the only controversy surrounding vivisection however. There are very real questions as to whether animal models :of human anatomy and physiology are valid. Objectors to the method would, for instance, point out that rats carried the :flea which infected humans with the Black Death thus showing a very extreme difference between the rat reaction to the disease :and the corresponding human reaction. With differences such as this, say the objectors, what use can such an animal model be?

Centers such as CAAT(The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing) at John's Hopkins University have been :working for some years to demonstrate to the scientific and medical community that valid alternatives can be found.

The first paragraph one easily-refuted stock animal rights argument against animal testing, loaded with weasel words (e.g. "very real questions", bubonic plague, rhetorical questioning, scientific deceit...). The second paragraph links to establishments that research into animal testing, not "vivisection".

Adding these paragraphs to the vivisection article is inherently POV. They should be in animal testing. Kyz 12:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions

Philosophical, legal and scientific views.
Some 19th or early 20th century texts.
- I have seen it debated on Nature of 1869 and early 1870s.
- 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
  - http://18.1911encyclopedia.org/V/VI/VIVISECTION.htm
  - http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/VIR_WAT/VIVISECTION.html
Arguments pros and cons: utilitarian, animal rights, ...
Alternatives: reduction, refinement and replacement (the 3R).
Types of animals:
- Invertebrate:
  - Low lives: worms, fruit flies, ...
  - Highly advanced species: octopus
- Vertebrate:
  - Marginal cases: fish (can it feel pain?)
  - Animals we usually do not like: rat
  - Friends: dog, rabbits
  - Primates: monkey, ape, ...
  - Very special cases: strains with defective genes (naturally occured or artificially altered; patented or not)

OK. I will write something to imporve this article. -- Toytoy 04:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This article is still massively POV. The term itself is poorly defined and the rest of the article: it's like, been tried to NPOV it by posting secondary defensive statements by animals rights crap, but the whole thing MOSTLY centers on controversy, inflammatory statements and defenses to those. There is absolutely no history here except the controversy. SchmuckyTheCat 23:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human vivisection & consent

Can I please have a clarification of what the problem is with the consent paragraph? As far as I'm aware (from the POV of a biomedical scientist), if you want to do *anything* with humans, even talking to them, you need their signed consent **and** an ethical review. I've given evidence/references that show that this is the case. DanP, before you delete the paragraph again, can you please provide a reference that consent and ethical review is not required for vivisection on humans. G.hartig 06:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the case of minors, of course, parents provide consent for any medical procedure. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is refering to human volunteers. If there is a connection to vivisection, then one should cite a source for such a claim. Otherwise, the sentence is mere speculation. DanP 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reference I've added supports the claim. There is no speculation involved. DanP, please provide a reference that consent and ethical review is not required for vivisection on humans, before you delete the paragraph again. If you think this request is unreasonable, please let me know why. G.hartig 00:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your citation does not even mention vivisection. Please cite some sources that indicate human volunteers are somehow related to vivisection. My dictionary reads that vivisection is "cutting into or dissecting a living body". There is no mention of what you are claiming specifically with regard to vivisection, nor does the article you cite even mention it. DanP 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your dictionary definition does not note whether consent or ethical review is required. As it doesn't specify either way, it isn't relevant to the debate. Similarly, you couldn't use it to discuss vivisection in China, as China is not mentioned in the definition. My reference to human research does include vivisection. If you're dealing with a human in any way, be it vivisection or talking to them, you need consent and ethical approval. Again, please provide a reference that consent is not required. G.hartig 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That point should be under the Vivisection and experimentation debate article, which is broader then just vivisection. Also, if genital mutilation is not vivisection, then catheters and so forth definitely don't count. I've come to see Jayjg's point: that if it's not an animal, and can be non-research related, etc. then it shouldn't be here. If this article is truly about vivisection then it shouldn't claim that "the taking of tissue samples (biopsies), the implantation of catheters, or other procedures which require surgery on the volunteer" is vivisection. If there is a matter of ethical review, then I see your point about China. However, I'm not making any claims about China, and if I did, I would cite some source instead of asking you to disprove mere speculation. DanP 18:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am disputing this tag-team nonsense. If no source can be cited, then the claim is original research. DanP 18:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK - I think we're getting somewhere. DanP - is it that you dispute that there shouldn't be a section on human vivisection as (to quote you) "if it's not an animal, and can be non-research related, etc. then it shouldn't be here"? We could address that by adding a preamble to the effect of "If the vivisection is for research...". How about this as a further reference: article 5 of the UN's universal declaration of human rights: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html They can't be 'subjected' to it if it's consentual. G.hartig 22:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that from. The owner of the animal, say the research lab, I'm sure consents to an animal's vivisection. So consent is entirely off-the-table as a factor in vivisection vs. non-vivisection. I don't know why you imply the contrary. What I'm disputing is both the claim that cathether's, etc. is vivisection, and the presence of "human volunteers" which should be in Vivisection and experimentation debate article. As to the UN declaration on human rights, if every catheter and biopsy is meant to be legalized or acceptable vivisection in this article, then forced genital mutilation surely is a vivisection (even when it's legal). I don't even see vivisection mentioned in Article 5, or anywhere in UDHR for that matter, so what's the deal? You seem to be wrong on all counts. DanP 17:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DanP, I'm still not clear as to what the problem is. As succinctly as possible, out of all the issues you have with the human vivisection section, which one is the biggest or most important?G.hartig 03:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on this topic appears to have died down. Does anyone have any problem with the "disputed" tag being removed from the human vivisection section? G.hartig 6 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)

See below DanP 7 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Vivisection

Vivisection is defined as the act or practice of performing experiments on living animals. The term is used to refer to several categories of scientific or medical procedures performed on animals including: drug or chemical testing, biochemical research and raising and killing animals for parts (such as heart vavles) or organs. Mpp86 16:29, 25 Jun 2005 (signature added by DanP)

Now that makes sense. Let's get the other stuff about the United Nations, etc. out of here, shall we? DanP 15:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mpp86 - where is the definition from? G.hartig 28 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)

helox... it's from http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/ Mpp86 30 June 2005

Thanks. I was a bit concered about its accuracy - it sounds a bit animal-rights-ish. Also on the page, just underneath the definition is "But in order to effectively address the heartfelt concerns of those who have been led to believe animal experiments are necessary not only for their well-being, and the welfare of their loved ones, animal activists need to address not only the facts, but also the emotional framework and historical baggage that perpetuate the myths which keep the industry of animal research thriving." G.hartig 1 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem rather narrowly focussed on animal-rights. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

Correct, so if the definition is narrowly focused on animal-rights, can we delete the nonsense about human experimentation from this article? I can't see any reason to leave it here given that

animals are not involved
the experiments are not generally described as vivisection in the linked articles
the "human volunteers" section covers things like catheters and nonsense unrelated to vivisection
no academic references have been provided that focus on human vivisection
the Vivisections at Kyushu University Hospital in 1945 is just a dead link

My suggestion is to move the info to the Vivisection and experimentation debate article. DanP 7 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

DanP is almost right here, although I think he's a little quick on the delete trigger. Let me ramble for a bit and see if I can try to clarify this. First, I fixed the fukuoka link -- they moved the article, but it was on the front page of the "articles" section of that site. So that was easy to fix. Second, while I agree that most of the vivisections in the world (if you express them as a percentage) are by a huge margin performed on non-human animals, in common usage the term certainly does apply to humans. We would not hesitate to describe some of the Nazi experiments as vivisection, for example. Or see these excerpts from an article by well-known New York Times writer Nicholas D. Kristoff here. So it is clear that vivisection can be performed on human beings, and thus the section should stay. However I also think DanP is correct in that if a person consents to an medical treatment, that is not a vivisection, since the term itself carries with it the connotation that the operation was not being done for the benefit of the patient. The relation of the word to the word "disection" clearly implies that the procedure is being done for the benefit of the researcher/sector, rather than for the patient/victim (compare "surgery" or "operation").

If there are people out there who consent to be cut up while alive specifically for medical research purposes rather than for their own treatment, I think it would be fair to characterize those procedures as vivisections. The biopsy example is a good one; the catheter example is not. Nandesuka 13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of sentences to try to expand upon DanP's points about vivisection. Nandesuka 20:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness

"The scientific merit of these experiments has been questioned, as well as the ethics of using their results."

I removed that statement. It sounds more like being politically correct, or interjecting morals/opinions as a factual statement. Questioning the scientific merit of vivisection on humans is the same as questioning the scientific merit of vivisection in general. If there was no scientific merit on vivisection, it wouldn't be conducted at all, including on animals.

Please sign your comments. Your own last sentence here is either extremely opinionated and/or fallacious, and ignores the possibility that vivisection, either on humans or animals, could be influenced by nonscientific reasons, including nonscientific curiousity and outright cruelty. On the contrary, there is indisputable evidence than many vivisections have been performed for no better reason than "amusement." NTK 12:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition

Vivisection means to cut into a living organism. I don't know where this idea that it can mean something else comes from. I have consulted several dictionaries both online and the old-fashioned print variety and I find no support for this claim. As a result, I am removing any reference to any other meaning from the article and anyone who wants to return it should provide authoritative evidence.

According to my Webster's dictionary: vivisection: n. 1. the practice of cutting into or dissecting a living body. 2. the practice of subjecting living animals to cutting operations, esp. in order to advance physiological or pathological knowledge. The term comes from the Latin vivi- meaning "alive" and -sect meaning "to cut". The term literally means "to cut a living creature". It can't be accurately used in any other way. --SpinyNorman 07:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the large Merriam-Webster (1963): '... broadly, any form of animal experimentation, especially if considered to cause distress to the subject.' Thus the term also applies to experiments done with the administration of noxious substances, burns, electric or traumatic shocks, drawn-out deprivations of food and drink, psychological tortures leading to mental imbalance, and so forth. The term was employed in that sense by the physiologists of the last century who started this kind of 'medical research', and so it will be used by me. By 'vivisectionist' is usually meant every upholder of this method; by 'vivisector' someone who performs such experiments or participates in them."Xanax 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Croce's book is not even remotely a valid reference for English usage. First of all, the professor's book wasn't even originally written in English, it was written in Italian and then translated. Second, it isn't exactly a mainstream publication - it isn't available through mainstream sites like Amazon.com but rather through activist and extremist sites like this www.dlrm.org. I'll take Webster's dictionary over a mistranslation of an Italian professors's obscure book any day and I doubt anyone would disagree with me on that one. --SpinyNorman 23:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. First, what earthly difference would it make what language it was first published in? Second, it's available in book stores and from Amazon. Third, he's a professor of pathology. Fourth, he quotes a bunch of dictionaries in his book that confirm what he's saying. Fifth, it's not at all obscure: just because you personally haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's obscure. I must say I'm at a loss as to understand why you've turned up with this new user name and started edit warring on animal-rights articles out of the blue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the book was written in Italian and then translated, it may have been mistranslated - particularly in the case of a non-standard use of a well-known term. Second, it may be available in book stores, I haven't actually checked one to see, but a search of Amazon turned up nothing and that usually indicates a book is fairly obscure. I don't see how you can characterize good-faith editing as "edit-warring". I've gone out of my way to support and defend my edits. Perhaps I should suggest you re-read the wikipedia policy on assuming good faith? --SpinyNorman 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we quote the dictionaries diectly, instead of Croce? That might be a way of arriving at a mutually agreeable solution. I checked the OED, but it specifically notes living animals, but not the other alleged meaning. For the record, I thought the earlier paragraph, which noted that some sources use it in this informal way, was better. Nandesuka 02:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have three dicdefs, Nandesuka, though we should place a scholarly source in the field above dictionary definitions, but I'd have no objection if you wanted to add these too. First two are for the word "vivisection"; third for "vivisectionist." (And have since added the EB.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The American Encyclopaedia: Any form of animal experimentation, whether it involves dissection or not
Merriam-Webster: Broadly, any form of animal experimentation, especially if considered to cause distress to the subject.
Blakiston's New Gold Medical Dictionary: [H]e who practises and defends animal experimentation.
Encyclopedia Britannica: Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals."

I question the validity of The American Encyclopaedia as a reference. A Google search turns up no direct links to it and there is no article on it in wikipedia. Also, it seems odd that something calling itself "The American Encyclopaedia" would use a non-standard spelling of "encyclopedia".

Merriam-Webster is at least a recognized source, but without a link to back it up, there's no way to check it.

As for Blakiston, the dispute here isn't about the definition of "vivisectionist" but rather "vivisection".

I propose we use the Oxford English Dictionary as the definitive reference. Would that be acceptable? The OED is generally considered to be a reputable source for information about the proper use of the English language, or so I believe. Not only that, but it offers an internet link so we anyone who wants to can verify my claim [1]. The definition of "vivisection" is "the practice of performing operations on live animals for scientific research". I trust this will put the matter to rest once and for all? --SpinyNorman 03:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. You question a professor of pathology because he originally published in Italian. You question a definition given by, among others, the Enyclcopaedia Britannica, and used by the professor. You revert using one of your user names and an IP address. This isn't good behavior. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm entitled to correct anyone who uses a word in a manner unsupported by the clearly articulated definition in the Oxford English Dictionary which says nothing about the definition being expanded to include all animal experimentation. As for posting under an IP, I am a bit puzzled by that. I was logged in at the time and am at a loss to explain why it shows an IP address instead of my name. Now, if I may ask a question of you, how is it you feel entitled to question the OED? --SpinyNorman 03:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm unindenting because eternal indentation annoys me). SlimVirgin, those sources are good enough to demonstrate that the word is used by some to describe animal experimentation, which I believe was the claim at issue. SpinyNorman, I can agree with you from a strictly linguistic standpoint (after all, what else does the "vivi" in "vivisection" stand for?) and still think you're being unreasonable if you don't want to document a common, if erroneous, usage. Nandesuka 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BRAVO! Excellent idea! I hope this appeases Slim. You're absolutely right, that the other usages (incorrect though they may be) should be documented. I tried it my way but was shot down. Just as well - yours is better anyway. Thank you for moving things along. --SpinyNorman 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It rather goes without saying that a common usage cannot be "erroneous", because dictionaries are not prescriptive but descriptive; in other words, they collect usages, but do not judge them. "Vivisection" is very widely used for a broader type of experiment than just cutting, whatever it means "etymologically". I think one quickly finds oneself on soft sand whenever one appeals to what words used to mean rather than what they actually are taken to mean today. I think though that suggesting that an Italian professor is a good source for usage, when he wrote in Italian not English and was translated by someone else is, erm, let's just say a bit cute and move on. -- Grace Note

I'm a bit puzzled by the persistent use of Croce as well. Especially since the quotes I've seen from him leave little doubt that he has some, well, extreme views on the issue. I do disagree with your descrption of dictionaries as not "prescriptive" though. If they're not, what's the point of them? They are a reference work, aren't they?

Nandesuka, I'm fine with what you wrote, but bewildered by Spiny's waste of time here and on other animal-rights pages, and I'd be interested to know which edition of the OED you're using, Spiny, because I have so far not found any other English-language dictionary, encyclopedia, or scholarly source that restricts its definition to the etymology of the word. Meaning = use.

I don't have an OED to hand, but I found this online: "Part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of vivisection is 'painful experiments upon living animals'." [2]

As well as the dictionary and

definitions above, here are a few examples of usage by authoritative sources showing the term does not refer only to "cutting" (my emphasis below):

Animals & Ethics by Angus Taylor (professor of philosophy): "Vivisection, strictly speaking, refers to the dissection or cutting up of living animals ... though in a broader sense the terms includes any painful or harmful treatment of living animals for scientific research. Much, but not all, animal experimentation falls under the heading of vivisection in the broader sense." (p 121)
Vivisection or Science? by Pietro Croce (professor of pathology): "We use the terms vivisection and animal experimentation synonymously. Vivisectors do not like the term 'vivisection' because of its emotive connotations." (p 30)
Not even a sparrow falls: the philosophy of Stephen R.L. Clark by Daniel A. Dombrowski (professor of philosophy): "[I]f animals deserve the respect that [Clark] alleges they do, there will be consequences for the educational-commercial experimentation on animals ... that is (sometimes misleadingly) called 'vivisection'." (p 199)
British parliamentary commission into vivisection, 1875-6: "To inquire into the practice of subjecting live animals to experiments for scientific purposes, and to consider and report what measures, if any, it may be desirable to take in respect of any such practice." [3]
House of Lords Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, 2000: "'Anti- vivisectionists' are those who are opposed to all animal experiments ..." (p 111) [4]
House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, 2000: "The 1876 [Cruelty to Animals] Act regulated vivisection and introduced a licensing and inspection system." (Chapter One) [5] And the 1876 Act says: "Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to cruelty to animals by extending it to the cases of animals which for medical, physiological or other scientific purposes are subjected when alive to experiments calculated to inflict pain ..." [6]

And I'm bewildered by your incivility. I consider it incredibly rude to describe someone's good-faith edits as a "waste of time" - especially an administrator. You're not setting a very good example. --SpinyNorman 16:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpinyNorman, I'm glad you agree that the OED definition is the one we should use. Here is the full (first) definition (from [7], but you'll need a subscription):

    1. The action of cutting or dissecting some part of a living organism; spec. the 
action or practice of performing dissection, or other painful experiment, upon living 
animals as a method of physiological or pathological study.

The "or other painful experiment" does make it clear that we're not limited to cutting here. I've revised the intro appropriately. Thanks for helping us come to a reasonable closure on this issue. Regards, Nandesuka 12:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - though I find it curious why there is such a selective difference between the free version and the subscription version and why my home dictionary's definition (as well as the defition I learned in school) corresponds to the one but not the other. However, in deference to the grace and balance you've shown (perhaps others here should take lessons), I'll give you the last word. I'm going to remove the reference to Croce though and substitute your link to OED. Croce is still irrelevant - I believe you and I agree on tht point. --SpinyNorman 16:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'vivisection' is now used to apply to all types of experiments on living animals, whether or not cutting is done. So states the Encyclopedia Americana (International Edition 1974).Xanax 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croce as a source

As another user and I have both pointed out, Professor Pietro Croce's book is not an appropriate source for the definition of the world. I searched Amazon.com again for "Pietro Croce" and got ZERO hits. The fact that Amazon doesn't list it even as an out-of-print book certainly suggests that it is an obscure work. A Google search turns up a handful (693) hits - many of which seem to be extremist web sites of one form or another. Croce, while there is no indication he engages in violent acts like some anti-vivisectionist (SHAC, ALF, etc.) is certainly a holder of extreme views in the sense that he says he wants to do away with all animal experimentation - a view not shared by many of his colleagues. Therefore, I think any references to him are potentially POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpinyNorman (talk • contribs)

I don't know what you're up to exactly, but you seem to be trying to cause trouble. The source you say is not good enough (not as good as your compact online dictionary) is professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Milan and a member of the American College of Pathologists. He was in charge of the research laboratory of Milan's L. Sacco hospital for 30 years, where he performed vivisection, has received several international awards, including a Fullbright fellowship, and has conducted research at the National Jewish Hospital, University of Colorado and Toledo hospital, Ohio, and the Cuidad Sanatorial of Tarassa in Spain. His book on vivisection has been published in Italian, English, Japanese, and German, and is sold by Amazon, contrary to your claim. [8] The book contains glowing reviews from Michael Mansfield Q.C. and Dr. Bernard Rambeck, head of biochemistry for the Epilepsy Research Foundation in Germany, among others.

Croce is in every sense a reputable source for Wikipedia. Your compact online Oxford dictionary is not. You also deleted the Encyclopedia Britannica when you said you were deleting Croce. These edits put you in violation of policy.

You're edit warring across a number of animal-rights pages, making changes for the sake of change, and introducing (deliberately, I hope) a deterioration in the writing, [9] POV, poor sources, original research, and reverting a lot, all the while pretending not to understand why people are objecting. I can't think why, because I've had no contact with you before this that I'm aware of. All I know is that you edit as SpinyNorman (talk · contribs), 24.87.210.3 (talk · contribs), and there's a note on the IP's talk page saying you're also JonGwynne (talk · contribs), who's been blocked nine times by six admins for excessive reverting, who was sanctioned by the arbcom for edit warring, and who is on revert parole at Global warming, though I've no idea whether you are, in fact, the same person. If you are, you should note that a request could be made to have the revert parole extended to other articles, or even to all. You may also be reported for disruption. I'm going to leave this on your talk page too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided no evidence to support any of your claims so I'm somewhat at a loss to imagine how you can expect me to take them seriously. Nandesuka has provided an excellent example of how to deal constructively on these pages which you seem unwilling or unable to follow. Perhaps you could make more of an effort in future. --SpinyNorman 07:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpinyNorman, please don't put words in my mouth. I never expressed any opinion on Croce as a source, except to suggest that using sources we all agreed on might avoid conflict. Your tone on the talk page is needlessly antagonistic. Please moderate it. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka 04:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon but did you not say "I think though that suggesting that an Italian professor is a good source for usage, when he wrote in Italian not English and was translated by someone else is, erm, let's just say a bit cute and move on."? That seems pretty clear to me from that statement that you don't consider Croce's book to a good source for usage. --SpinyNorman 07:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. That was someone else. Nandesuka 13:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I apologize. It did appear to me as though you had replied with that quote. I will remove your name from the original statement. --SpinyNorman 16:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who said it, I fail to see the relevance of his having originally written in Italian. He's worked as a vivisectionist in English-speaking countries. He knows what the word means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. This is a discussion about linguistic usage. References to liguistic usage should be in the original language. I'm not saying he can't speak English, I'm not saying he wouldn't be a valid source for matters related to his area of expertise (though I find your use of the term "vivisectionist" indicative of a pretty strong bias on your part with regard to this issue) but Croce's area of expertise isn't language or usage. That's why the reference to Britannica is more valid that Croce. I wanted to thank you for your link to the book on Amazon. I still can't get it to come up when I seach for it myself but I did want to say that I was able to find it and I withdraw my statement that it can't be found on Amazon. p.s. Have you had a look at the catalog of Zed books? [10] Not exactly an objective organization, is it?--SpinyNorman 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at Zed books, but I will, so thank you for the link. As for the comment about it being an "objective" organization, the problem is that you take pro-vivisection as the default position, and anti-vivisection as a POV. They are both POVs and neither is "objective" (whatever that means). All we can do is use knowledgeable sources on each side. Croce is one of the more knowledgeable ones, having worked as a vivisectionist and now opposing it (and he is the one who uses the term; I'm simply using of him the word he uses of himself). It's absurd to imagine he doesn't know what the word "vivisection" just means because he was born and raised in Italy, and anyway, you also deleted the EB as a source, which even you could not question as authoritative on English-language words. I don't want to argue about it any more because you've wasted enough time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take "pro-vivisection" as a "default position". Whatever gave you the idea that I did? It seems clear that you're strongly opposed to animal testing of all kinds and that's fine. But I don't think it excuses your incivility. I'm sorry you consider substantive debate to be a "waste of time". I came here because I read some articles in the mainstream media about how wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously because of the nature of some of the writing and editing that occurrs here and the tendency of certain subjects to be taken over by a small clique of like-minded people (I just took a look at the partial birth abortion article and it was horrifyingly POV). I'm just doing my best to bring some small measure of neutrality and objectivity to the scene. If you consider that a waste of time, I don't know what to say except perhaps one day you will learn to see the value in it. --SpinyNorman 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to framing

What's wrong with a reference to the New England Anti Vivisection Society and their view on framing? It certainly seems relevant to me. You can't argue that it is biased against animal rights. What's the problem? --SpinyNorman 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What view on framing? The link you provided says:He also understood the power of the media in educating the public and framing the issues. [11]. You wrote, This usage has been adopted by groups opposed to most or all animal testing as an example of Framing (communication theory). That opinion appears to be your own. The second link that you provided, to the Americans for Medical Progress, [12] doesn't say that either. It's best to attribute claims to avoid this problem in the future. --Viriditas 09:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human vivisection

"Vivisection has long been practised on human beings, and was a prerequisite for the development of the field of medicine."

I am taking out the "prerequisite" bit. There is no question that the study of human anatomy was a prerequisite, however, human vivisection refers specifically to experimentation on live humans, especially live dissections. It is extremely doubtful whether medicine would have been impeded by the use of only human cadavers, animal vivisection, and observations done in the course of actual treatment of patients. In fact it is doubtful whether any significant discoveries were made at all through human vivisection in its strictest definition. NTK 12:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you include painful as part of the definition, then you cannot also use vivisection to describe experiments under anesthesia. Gleng 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a word. The word is used by different people to mean different things. The use of a disjunction in the introductory paragraph makes that clear. Nandesuka 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the antispeciesist position

I have added a mention of the antispeciesist position, which is more general than that of animal rights (animal rightists are usually antispeciesists, but not all antispeciesists are animal rightists, for example the utilitarian Peter Singer.

Nandesuka has been repeatedly reverting that addition.

There is no particular reason to document that position, it exists, is publicly stated by many antispeciesists, including Peter Singer in Animal Liberation and so on. Animal Rightists, utilitarians and so on differ about how to apply the position, but not on the position itself: the species of a being is not by itself a morally relevant property. If it is not ethical to do a certain experiment on a human being, it is not ethical to do it on a mouse, when the same ethically relevant facts obtain.

David Olivier 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "many antispeciesists" have written works or public statements that document their positions against vivisection, then it will be trivial to add a citation or two to the article. Wikipedia is a tertiary-sourced encyclopedia that publishes verifiable statements of reliable sources. When we do these things, we cite sources to provide our readers with confidence that we are not publishing original research. I asked for sources because your paragraph read like original research. I believe you when you say that it is not, but since it reads like it is, please cite sources in the article. Thanks. Nandesuka 02:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to put the assertion back. If you do not know that what it says is fact - that that is the general antispeciesist position - it means you are ignorant about the matter. There is no more need to document that than there is a need to document the preceeding sentence ("Those advocating a strict animal rights view, rather than a more general animal welfare position, may argue that, regardless of possible benefits to society, vivisection is immoral based on its transgression of the rights of animals."). Not each and every sentence in the text should be documented!

I have no idea why you say that it reads like original research. Yes, it is "trivial" to document that, except that it does take some time to do it. I will do it just the same, later today, on this talk page, to stop this stupid revert war.

David Olivier 07:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am in fact ignorant about the matter. That's why I, like our other readers, am looking to an encyclopedia to educate me. Please provide a source so that I, like our other readers, can educate ourselves on this matter, and not just read the opinions of David Olivier. Nandesuka 11:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the whole paragraph. I'm not sure it is the place for going into such detail, but, well, you asked for it.

Actually I don't see exactly why there is this Vivisection article and another article on animal experimentation. I feel it would be preferable to have one factual argument about animal experimentation (current practices, history), and another specifically on the ethics of animal experimentation (the different points of view).

The paragraph that finishes the section:

Modern codes of practice like those issued by the U.S. National Institute of Health or the British Home Office require that any invasive procedure on laboratory animals must be performed under deep surgical anaesthesia. These codes are legally binding for most organisations involved in vivisection in the western world (see, for example the U.K. animals (scientific procedures) act (ASPA)). Welfare laws and accepted codes of conduct specify that the procedures carried out on laboratory animals should not be painful to them, although legislation does allow for anaesthetic not to be used if it will confound the results of an experiment. Opponents to vivisection claim that the law can fail to protect animals being vivisected [2] and point to undercover investigations showing that animals often do suffer. [3]

is strongly biased in favour of animal experimentation. Animals submitted to toxicology experiments or many other forms of experimentation are never anesthesized. But I don't have time to go into that now.

David Olivier 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "Vivisection" to oppose animal research

Hello, anonymous animal researcher here. Virtually every occurrence of the term vivisection that I come across it is used in literature to oppose animal research. If you google it, all the hits come back with animal rights websites. You will not find animal researchers refer to their work as vivisection, in the medical and research communities even today it is an obscure term.

I cannot find the source that re-introducted it, it may have been Croce. This word has grown hundreds of times in prevalence the last two decades in the US. So, as an animal researcher, my take on it.

Those involved in veterinary and medical practice and research do not use the term ever in normal references to practice, instead referring to procedures as surgeries or in vivo testing. Vivisection implies cruelty to the experimental subject. And animal welfare practice requires minimizing cruelty to animals.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vivisection

"the cutting of or operation on a living animal usually for physiological or pathological investigation; broadly : animal experimentation especially if considered to cause distress to the subject 2 : minute or pitiless examination or criticism"

You can see from this definition why animal rights activists choose the term vivisection. It is, taken alone, pejorative towards their practices.

158.93.12.41 14:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Vivisection and consent

"The use of the term vivisection when referring to procedures performed on humans almost always implies a lack of consent, as it does when it is practiced on non-humans." This paragraph deals with vivisection in humans; introducing the idea that animals are capable of granting or withdrawing consent is not relevant or for that matter commonly accepted. Even if it were included under the animal vivisection section it would have to be cited since it is not common knowledge. Therefore I suggest that we remove it from the Human Vivisection paragraph and add it as a separate paragraph under Animal Vivisection with appropriate citations. Deez n 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay neutral on the issue of whether non-human animals can give informed consent to experimentation. It might be interesting to discuss the issue in the article, but it would require quite some work to do it in a sourced and NPOV manner.

The neutral wording appears to me to be the current one, i.e. the one that includes the phrase "as it does when it is practiced on non-humans". Whether or not non-humans can give their informed consent in other cases, they do not give it in these cases; I don't think that is disputed. Without that phrase, the sentence suggests that the absence of informed consent is specific to the human case.

The book I specified in my edit summary, S.F. Sapontzis, Morals, Reason, and Animals, argues (ch. 12) that non-human animals can give their informed consent in some cases. That may not apply to vivisection in the strict sense (that implies cutting flesh), which is what that paragraph seems to be discussing. It does apply to animal research in general (and I don't think it is useful, etymology notwithstanding, to make a special category of vivisection in this strict sense). However, that is a side-issue, unless we do get down to a discussion about informed consent.

David Olivier 12:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a specific section on whether or not animals can give consent may be helpful, although I agree that it would be more at home in the animal experimentation article. Current wording implies that animals are capable of consent, this is a controversial point. omitting the end of the sentence does not bias it the other way since the capability of the animals to consent is irrelevant to human vivisection.

As far as "informed consent" goes it is a specific legal construct that is meaningless in the context of animals since laws protecting human subjects do not protect animal subjects. While lack of informed consent does not mean that no consent was given, human vivisection implies total lack of any type of consent.

Your thoughts are appreciated. Deez n 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence on consent in animals to the animal experimentation page. I hope this solves the issue on not including it under "human vivisection" Deez n 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

Why is this article so short? Judging by the length of the talk page it's hardly lacking in interested editors. I looked in the history to see a section regarding the ethics of animal vivisection mentioning Kant, Aquinas, speciesism etc, yet the current article is barely more than a stub. This is obviously a very important topic, so expanding the article to deal with specific instances of human vivisection, the ethics of animal vivisection, and historic attitudes towards vivisection is vital. Restoring sections that have been previously culled may be a good start. Richard001 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need a good editor

There is an article Dissect them alive: order not to be disobeyed that needs a good editor to summarize this reference and insert into the main article. Crocoite 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of discussion of ethic committees - and claims that all physiology can be done in vitro

I added a paragraph on the fact that most (or all) western nations now have legislation governing how vivisection is carried out in scientifically, both human and animal. This was removed. I thought it was appropriate since there was a sentence mentioning that scientists wish for more education about this topic to the public. Why should it be removed? Oh, and for anyone that suggests that in vitro work can completely replace in vivo experiments, can you please explain to me how to generate antigen specific lymphocytes, and antibodies for that matter, without animals first? Even if that single lymphocyte exists in the test tube, how exactly do you go about activating it and ensuring T cell interactions (among the other things involved) also occur? Volantares 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to remove a claim that all physiology can be done in vitro since it is a POV, but the info about ethics committees was NPOV, so I think that should have stayed. Bob98133 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every proponent thinks it is less accurate?

I was corrected on my edit that "proponents" believe that scientifically these techniques produce poorer results. Is it possible to have someone who thinks that since alternative methods are available they should be used instead, but vivisection itself isn't invalid scientifically? They disagree entirely on ethical grounds, but the way the article reads, it sounds like EVERY anti-vivisectionist believes that it is intrinsically weak, and I don't believe that is true. Volantares 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has become a list of arguments

This article has become a list of arguments for and against vivisection, which is not encyclopedic content. Perhaps there needs to be a separate entry for Arguments for and against vivisection. The present article should really be encyclopedic, and contain information about the history of vivisection, its generally accepted present use today, historical and present day legal policies and regulation, etc. Ethical arguments seem fine, but should likely be branched off to a separate article, and certainly should contain more references. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, after all. Please comment below with your thoughts. I have placed a POV check on the article until these issues are cleared up. Thanks! --chodges 07:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New changes

Even in cases where inaccurate results occur, any outcome is still productive as it allows scientists to improve their experimental designs for the future.

This sounds like a military definition of failure - it is only useful for justifying the continuation of a process that didn't work. Is the purpose of vivisection to have it continue as a process or is the purpose to gather useful scientific information? This statement lends support to the former purpose. Maybe it could be cleared up.Bob98133 12:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you look at it. Most science produces negative results, and vivisection is no different. That reply was in response to the charge that vivisection produces results that are "useless" and therefore should not be carried out. It's been partially rewritten since your post anyway.