Talk:Nikos Logothetis

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A report about Nikos Logothetis

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2015/05/embattled-max-planck-neuroscientist-quits-primate-research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.20.93 (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

animal welfare section needs work

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section contains a bunch of POV and weasle-words, e.g. "(appears) (to portray) abuse"; the correct and accurate formulation would look more like "documenting actual harm to animals that might attain the legal definition of abuse"

It is not unclear that animal research harms animals, what is unclear is the fitting to a legal definition of abuse. Of course one method of dealing with this is clearly fleeing to do research in a country where lawmakers care so little about animal welfare that we are now experiencing a global pandemic. 78.54.67.249 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)talonxReply

I've changed this sentence for a start. Others are welcome to jump in.