Talk:Weizmann Institute of Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Accusations of animal abuse[edit]

This paragraph is heavily biased and misplaced, for the following reasons:

  1. It only cites the allegations made by the "Let Animals Live" group, as provided in the newspaper which cooperates with them in their new campaign.
  2. The responses of the Weizmann Institute of Science and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities to these allegations are not mentioned.
  3. The purpose of the experiments, their methodology, their extent (8 monkeys) and the strict supervision they undergo are not mentioned.
  4. The paragraph fails to clarify that the campaign protests against animal experiments in all Israeli research institutes, not only in the Weizmann Institute of Science.
  5. Pasted on top of a start-Class article, this paragraph highlights one of many important scientific activities done at the Weizmann Institute of Science, that are not mentioned in the article at present. As these allegations are certainly non-specific to this institute, the paragraph should be moved to Animal testing on non-human primates#Allegations.

Regards, Lior (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

All good points. Please add the references you suggest. However, I believe that it is important that the information already there stay, since it does show another side of the work done at the institute, but that it could be more balanced. Bob98133 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Bob. I think you could benefit from the following exercise: Try to balance the paragraph you added yourself, representing both sides of the dispute with proper references. As a first step, here's the website of the laboratory against which the campaign is held. Out of hundreds of labs in the WIS, it's the only lab at present that works with non-human primates. You can take your time, this article has been a poor stub for more than 4 years now. Good luck, Lior (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine we could all benefit from exercise, but I will try to do what you attempt. I don't doubt that WIS does lots of good science, and it's good to hear that there is only one lab that uses primates, but that alone makes one wonder how useful and/or humane it is to use them as a model. In any event, the article should be NPOV, so I'll do the research and post it to this talk page for review prior to changing to article.Bob98133 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I plan on expanding the article a bit in the coming days, at which point this incident will probably deserve a small mention, however, I think a whole paragraph would be too much even then. I am joining the army on February 4, however, so if I have not expanded it by then, I'm probably not gonna be able to do so for a while. Yonatan talk 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, excuse me? The paragraph was removed as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, my going away has nothing to do with it. I was going to expand this article so the paragraph (or a bit of it) *can* be mentioned, but as the article stands right now, there is no room for it at all as this minor incident is given undue weight. I only mentioned the fact that I'm going away so you're aware that I may very well not expand the article in the end. In addition, you reverted numerous improvements I made to the article instead of just the one where I removed the paragraph. Please read the WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy and continue the discussion here before reverting me. Yonatan talk 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't disagree with you, just that I'd already said a similar thing about looking over the article to make it have less undue weight. I just tink it would be a good idea to discuss this on talk prior to reverting. I will review the article and try to make sure that it is agreeable to all prior to changing your most recent version - which is what I planned to do before your changes.Bob98133 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons Research[edit]

The accusations in this paragraph are quite questionable (not mentioning the issue of undue weight):

1. References are missing.

2. Early espionage suspicion against the Weizmann Institute were soon dismissed by the FBI itself, as stated in declassified documents. ("This attack was very rudimentary. [...] the proposed scenario that subject in New York was downloading files in connection with an attack from Israel does not make sense since on the Internet it is just as easy and fast to move files to Israel as it is to New York"). Source: http://www.irmep.org/ILA/weizmann/1176820-000%20---%2065w-BF-28197%20---%20Section%202%20%281043223%29.PDF

3. Also the information on Weizmann Insitute's involvement into Israels nuclear weapons program is qualified by the FBI ("INFORMATION CONTAINED FROM OPEN SOURCES IS SUBMITTED FOR GENERAL CONSIDERATION ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR INVESTIGATIVE JUSTIFICATIQN WITHOUT CONFIRMATION BY MORE RELIABLE SOURCES"). Source: http://www.irmep.org/ILA/weizmann/1176820-000%20---%2065W-BF-28197%20---%20Section%201%20%281037802%29.PDF

4. The mentioned study "Critical Technology Issues in Israel", allegedly issued by the Department of Defense, is not availabe, has 7 hits on Google, mostly antisemitic hate sites (davidduke.com, etc.)

Altogether, accusations of espionage seem to be completely baseless, whereas relyable information about the involvement into Israel's nucleart weapons program are missing. I suggest removing the paragraph. --Elikrieg (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They aren't really accusations, but rather documented facts. Espionage was not dismissed, it was just another case of prosecutorial forbearance. The FBI CounterIntelligence Division finding is that ""CI-3B believes that the Weizmann Institute is an academic organization which conducts research in high-technology issue areas, including theoretical aspects of nuclear and conventional weapons development."
The Authors of the book "Nuclear Express" refer to Weizmann as a nuclear weapons development incubator. http://www.amazon.com/The-Nuclear-Express-Political-Proliferation/dp/076033904X/
Those facts are well established enough to present in this entry. Mega Authority (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
One should carefully read the FBI documents: The sentence that you cite appears at an early stage of the investigation and is based on open sources only. Therefore, the authors themselves warn to use this information "without confirmation by more relyable sources". Subsequently, the investigation does not find any further proof for their statement and all suspicions are dismissed.
Of course it is still possible that the institute was somehow involved in the development of nuclear capabilities, but then there should be some proof and understanding to which extent this was the case. Elikrieg (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence: "In 1957, research instrumental to the study of polonium was conducted at the institute laboratory. This has been of concern to the investigation into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, the cause of which has been attributed to polonium." This sentence appears with no reference, and is probably wrong. Moreover in the small section regarding the history of Weizmann, only major events are mentioned, so there is no justification to add unsabstantiated rumors. טוקיוני (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)