h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Vivisection - A740594
Author: werekitty - U193430

I searched for vivsection on the search engine and found nothing so i thought i could do something instead.

-Werekitty

Hmm, much as I agree with most of your writing I suspect this one is going to fall short of what generally gets accepted by the guide on the 'objectivity' front.

Just a suggestion, but why don't you start off a little more neutrally, giving a fairly innocuous introduction into what vivisection is (for someone who's never heard the word) then add the plus points (advances to medical knowledge that have been achieved through vivisection) (again, I know you may not agree with the methods but there have been advancements, however cruel you may find the methods).
Then, finally you could offer reasons against vivisection and alternative methods (skin cultures - testing on humans, etc.). That way you finish on the note you want, vivisection is bad and unnecessary, but you get there in a way that shows everyone you can give alternatives without it all seeming too one sided.


That way you'd be offering a more balanced arguement and hopefully get this one accepted - and I do agree that the guide needs an entry on the subject.

As with all comments I make in PR, please feel free to ignore me or tell me to get lost if you like, I'm pretty thick skinned


whisky

Hi there

If you feel called to try to make your entry look all swish, try the <./>GuideML-Clinic</.>. Then you can have cool things like Headers and subheaders and stuff- although its all very simple. You don't have to, however.

I'm sure I heard somewhere tha one should take the claims of cosmetic companies to be against animal testing: practically all their ingredients have been tested on animals already.

Do you think that vivisection should be completely banned in the UK? Or do you think that there is a place for it in some medical circumstances? What about people who say that vivisection needs to happen in this country, because if we ban it it will take place somewhere else, but in less well regulated conditions?

Hi Whisky: I think that neutrality is important too

I think that it would help to make this a little less one sided.

You say that animal models are not an accurate model for humans, but for some elements of human physiology they are. I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'll have a hunt and find some examples.

As others have said, the word "biased" best describes this Entry. One easy way around this is to call it "the case against vivisection," a much more challenging route would be to present a balanced perspective.

A substantial majority of scientists and doctors believe in the necessity of animal testing before launching drugs on humans. To dismiss this as ignorance is profoundly insulting to them. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, the anti-vivisection point of view is a minority one and the actions of protesters at Huntingdon do little to bolster the credibility of this viewpoint: rather like the anti-abortionists who kill doctors, the assaults on Huntingdon staff undermine the credibility of the whole movement. Either you are against violence to all living things, or you are not.

This is not the forum to discuss my views (which fall, as ever, somewhere between the two extremes) - try retitling (it's worked for me in the past )

There is also a problem with this entry with naming the specific companies, and giving specific examples as "cruelty".

unless you include the references to the court cases where they were prosecuted, you open up h2g2 to possible liable actions. I therefore think that this part of the entry is likely to end up being removed.

You also give the example of the mouse with the ear on it's back as an example of cruelty. As this particular experiment dealt with weather a replacement ear could re-establish blood flow, and thus be viable, there was no choice but to use a live subject.

Also, as the ear is cartalige, which has no nerves, there was NO pain whatsoever, and thus almost certainly it was not cruelty.

I think that it this entry is to get through, then it needs to choose some better examples (like the ld50 test) rather than just striking out at the usual subjects.

I would also like to point out that without doing vivisectionist work, it is impossible to develope the alternatives which we would all like to see act as a replacement.

Also, british law requires that you look for alternatives (and document your search) prior to applying for a licence to do the specific experiment, which itself also has some of the toughest conditions in the world attached to it.

All I wanted was to see something on vivisection on the guide. I seem to have narked a few people with my opinions. Maybe I'm not the right person to do an entry on it; I am very biased on the subject, when i first saw images of vivsection i was crying like a baby, I may find it too hard to write an unbiased account of vivisection.
Maybe someone else could do it.
It's still alright for me to keep it on my personal space, though, right?

thanks, whisky for being so friendly, much appreciated.

Hi werekitty,

Keeping this on your personal space is fine!

I don't think you've narked anyone - some people who have posted here disagree with you, but the main point was not about your views, but about the *edited guide* criteria for inclusion. This is just about the friendliest place on the internet in terms of being able to discuss controversial topics without resorting to abuse or anger - at least in my experience.

The edited guide isn't the be all and end all of this site by any means, and perhaps a re-worked version of this entitled "Why I'm against vivesection" might be good for the The Post (see link in the front page) or perhaps you could find people to collaborate to produce a "Vivisection: For and Against" article with others who share your views and others who oppose them. Try the collaborative writing workshop for this, or post a message to "Ask the H2G2 community".

Best wishes

Otto

Otto is right - I don't think you've riled anyone at all. Why not propose this as a future talking point discussion?

Hi werekitty, amd welcome to the guide

Don't worry about offending people - we're a thick-skinned bunch here. And likewise, please don't take people's comments personally. This is a good article. It's just that articles have to meet the guidelines to be edited - you'll find them here <./>writing-guidelines</.>.

You're entry doesn't meet all of those guidelines. That doesn't mean it isn't good. People will still see it on your page. It just isn't suitable for editing.

Perhaps you would be good enough to remove it from Peer Review? To do that find your entry in the list (if it isn't on the first page you'll have to click the 'click here to see more entries' button) and next to it there should be a 'remove' link. Please click that

keep up the good work! this is well written, and well worth reading, and the main point I was picking you up on was your choice of examples, not the main idea.

I look forward to reading your next submission.

Just found this conversation from AGES ago
A slightly more knoledgeable were cat stands before you now
Thanks for the tips and support. Might put it in collaborative writing.