Research winning war with extremists, says group

Let's not forget that SHAC was founded in 1999, two years after Channel 4
television in Britain aired deeply disturbing footage in a
show called "It's a dog's life". The films, shot in secret,
showed HLS workers punching beagle puppies in the face,
shaking them violently, and throwing them against walls.
Four subsequent investigations uncovered horrors in way the
regular HLS staff treated the animals, from deliberate
cruelty and torture to bestiality. Animals were operated on
without anesthetic. Test results were falsified in order to
expedite the time to market of products.
Several HLS workers were convicted after these findings and
HLS itself was slammed with heavy fines.
What do the test animals face? Starvation, electrification,
burns, poisoning, heat and cold, deliberate infection with
diseases, mutilation, and surgery without anesthetic.
Unfortunately the public is led to believe otherwise, which begs the question, would those who experiment on animals, and deny suffering takes place, not hesitate to lie about the supposed benefits of their 'research'?

I think this will be my final post here since it's clear that trying to persuade vivisectionists is entirely pointless, but I thought fellow scientists might be interested in a couple of other bits of information.

For a start I wasn't blaming clinical trials for every health problem, I was just pointing out the stupidity of singling out one aspect of biomedical science for blame. In fact most health problems in the UK appear to be due to poor social and economic policies that usually whose adoption had very little to do with science.

I paid a visit to the SimuGen website (LINK and found the following quote in their April 2006 press release "This information will help drug developers to prioritize which compounds enter pre clinical animal toxicology studies and avoid unnecessary, expensive and time consuming failures in human clinical trials". So even the company itself doesn't claim that their system will totally replace animal toxicology studies in the immediate future. It is probably fair to say that in the recent past toxicology was a neglected science, but as new technologies have become available that situation is changing rapidly. I have little doubt that within the next 20 years computational and in vitro based methods will replace most, perhaps even all, the current animal based toxicology methods. The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (LINK contains good information about new developments in this field and links to other useful sites. What is clear is that the information gained from toxicology testing and research using animals is vital to biomedical science, not least for those developing alternatives.

Finally if anyone is tempted to read the book ￂﾓSacred Cows and Golden Geeseￂﾔ by Greek & Greek might want to be aware that it comes with a health warning, and not the one that was intended by the authors. The noted toxicologist Dr. Michael Festing made his opinions on this book clear in the ATLA congress paper ￂﾓIs the use of animals in biomedical research still necessary in 2002? Unfortunately, ￂﾓyesￂﾔￂﾔ (LINK and in a book review in Sacred Cows and Golden Geese (Book Review). Michael F.W. Festing, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 29, pp.617-620, 2001. The latter contains the following statement that I think sums it up very well
ￂﾓUnfortunately, the book [Sacred Cows and Golden Geese] ". . . is a feat of omission and distortion," to use the words that it uses to describe somebody else's work. it cannot be described as a serious attempt to show the limitations of animal research, because any facts that conflict with the beliefs of the authors have simply been ignored, or history has conveniently been rewritten. As a way of reducing the use of animals in medical research, I think this book will be counter-productive, because even if the authors do have a few good points to make, its numerous inaccuracies and distortions make it impossible to trust anything that they have written.ￂﾔ
Ouch!!

Southern Hawker (30 August) criticises my posting ￂﾑAnimal experiments are scientific chaosￂﾒ of 29th August. I should like to reply that although there are ethical problems regarding clinical testing of drugs on children, this is basically what happens on a daily basis when a child ￂﾑneeds a drugￂﾒ that isnￂﾒt licensed for children. As a young child cannot give ￂﾑinformedￂﾒ consent the parents must ￂﾖ but most of them refuse as they are suspicious of new drugs and do not want their child to be a guinea pig (after the animal tests remember). Adult human drug data is not necessarily irrelevant to children although the doses usually are - and beware e.g. aspirin.
Regarding human brain research, by scanning human brains one can see e.g. the centres involved in maths and music. This is the way scientific way forward and is being undertaken in several enlightened institutions.
Gillian Douglas Russell

Scientists at Cambridge University calim that a new technology could remove animal testing in the development of drugs and for any products where toxicity needs to be assessed. They have combined techniques known as microarray and machine learning technologies, to produce SimuGen, a system that could from a method for creating new drugs without pre-clinical trials on animals. It would prove more reliable and far less expensive than animal methods.

According to Dr Quin Wills of the Computational Biology Dept of Cambridge University,SimuGen will become a market leader in the emerging field of toxicogenomics, and will enable the testing of tens of thousands of genes at the same time. The long term plan is to replace animal testing research centres.The technology is already there but cannot be developed and implemented as long as sluggish drugs regulators require proof of safety by pre-clinical trials on two species of mammals before human testing can begin, even though enlightened scientists agree that the resulta from animal research can be hopelessly flawed.

Stephen Maturin has bizarrely suggested that clinical research, rather than animal research, might be the cause of the failings of modern medicine; another example of the twisted thinking of those who defend vivisection. To those who share this view I ask:

After more than 100 years of vivisection, in which many billions of pounds/dollars have been spent, and probably billions of animal lives have been lost in the search for those elusive ￂﾑcuresￂﾒ, health continues to deteriorate. Would it not be reasonable to expect that after all the time and money spent we should all be enjoying universal good health?

Do you believe that as a human being you have more in common, anatomically and physiologically, with another human being, rather than a mouse, rat, toad, cat, three-toed sloth, or whatever?

Countries with a high consumption of laboratory animals also happen to be amongst the worst when it comes to health (witness the USAￂﾒs vast consumption of laboratory animals and poor levels of health). Would you agree that this is not pure coincidence?

If the answer to any question is no, I think that any discussion as to the supposed ￂﾑnecessityￂﾒ of animal research might as well end now before the whole argument as offered on the part of pro-vivisectionists sinks even further into fairy-tale levels of reasoning.

ￂﾓThere are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who donￂﾒt know enough about it, and those who make money from it.ￂﾔ ￂﾖ Dr Werner Hartinger M.D.

The legacy of animal experimentation (UK figures)

Over one third of households now report chronic illness.
40% - and rising - of the population have, or will develop, cancer.
800 people die, daily, from circulatory disease.
20 million suffer some degree of arthritis.
30,000 new cases of diabetes and of epilepsy are diagnosed each year.
In the 10 years to 1992, serious diseases in children increased by an average of 85%.
In 5-14 year-olds cancer incidence almost tripled.
Perinatal illness has increased by 332%.
In the 0-4 category, endocrine diseases have risen by 88%.
One quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
1 in 12 pregnancies end in premature birth, and 1 in 17 in a birth defect.
Over a quarter of a million 7-15 year-olds suffer from migraine.
10,000 new cases of childhood epilepsy are diagnosed each year.
500 new cases of Altzheimers disease appear each day.
60% of over 65s suffer chronic illness.
One in six hospital beds are occupied as a direct result of medical intervention.
30,000 - and rising ￂﾖ diseases.
Between 10 and 20,000 people dead each year because of animal ￂﾓsafety-testedￂﾔ drugs.
An out-of control expenditure on health.
Pollution of the environment reaching survival-threatening levels - because of animal ￂﾓsafety-testedￂﾔ environmental pollutants.

Animal testing, good for us? You jokers are having a laugh.

"...when we come to extrapolate across the species boundaries from our experimental animals to man...(w)hat we're doing at the moment is politically expedient, but don't let's pretend we're doing something scientific..." - vivisectionist Dr David Clayson (who at least had the quality of honesty amongst his own sort, if not in public.)

Tom Stevens might perhaps like to tell us why animal experimentation, and not clinical trials, non-animal research, clinical observations, public health policy etc., is to blame for everything in his list of woes.

I'll leave that to him but his post does contain another classic anti-viv technique, the selective (mis)quotation of a leading scientist which distorts the meaning of that scientists original statement.

The late David B. Clayson was a highly respected toxicologist who wasn't afraid to criticize his colleagues when he felt that their science wasn't up to scratch, and many published papers by him show that he was very willing to go public with his doubts about the methadologies used to determine carcinogen risk. It is also wrong to imply that he privately felt that animal testing was useless, when the opposit was in fact the case.

A good indication of Dr. Clayson's real feelings on this subject can be found in the following review:
"Cancer risk assessment at the crossroads: the need to turn to a biological approach." Clayson DB, Iverson F. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. (1996)

The review is indeed critical of the carcinogenicity tests than in use, and in particular of mathematical models of toxicity that assume low dose linearity, and makes a series of proposals that the authors hope will if adopted improve the situation. What is clear is that the authors consider the use of rodent models to be crucial when evaluating potential carcinogens, and most of their proposals concern the adoption of recently developed rodent based techniques.

Dorian S makes a valid point, not all anti-vivisectionists are extremists and personally I believe that the scientific community does itself a disservice by concentrating too much on extremism and thereby contributing to a climate of fear that has only aided the extremists. The whole point of organizations such as Pro-Test is to end the extremists reign of terror by not being afraid to speak out in favour of animal research.

At the same time the campaigns of harassment and violence waged by the "real" extremists against HLS, Newchurch, Oxford University etc. have no place in democratic society and the government is quite right to crack down on them.

One consequence of the unwillingness of scientists to speak out on this issue is that antivivisectionists have often got away with the most appalling distortions of the facts about biomedical research. These distortions anger many scientists such as myself as much as the extremism that they sometimes fuel.

To take just one example out of many, in a recent letter to the Independent Andre Menache claimed that deep brain stimulation for the treatment of movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease was not discovered by Prof. Tipu Aziz using experiments on monkeys at Oxford University but by Dr. Alim-Louis Benabid in clinical observations in human patients. This claim, which has been repeated by the SPEAK campaign, ignores the fact that Prof. Aziz never claimed to have discovered DBS. More importantly dozens of scientific papers and reviews written by Dr. Benabid testify to the fact that while the initial suggestion that DBS could be useful in the treatment of movement disorders came from clinical observations it took years of animal (especially primate) studies by several groups of scientists, including those lead by Dr. Benabid and Prof.Aziz, to develop DBS into a reliable and effective treatment. This work is ongoing as new applications for DBS are under development. For an example please read the review:

Deep brain stimulation.
Breit S, Schulz JB, Benabid AL.
Cell Tissue Res. 2004 318(1):275-288
PubMed 15322914

As marchers at the Pro-Test rally put "No more lies, no more fear, animal testing wanted here!"

I find the comments of the likes of Nancy Newman on this comment board grossly offensive. People who are against animal testing are no more likely to be "animal rights extremists" than people who are pro-vivisection are "murdering maniacal torturers".

I am a normal person, living a fairly normal life. I get sick, I like to be medically treated and returned to health, in order to carry on living this fairly normal life. I am in no way different from many other people, apart from perhaps the fact that I find the idea of testing drugs, cosmetics, industrial agents and various other substances on animals to be abhorrent and intolerable. I am in NO WAY squemish about the realities of life and believe that the debate about animal testing has many motivations on both sides of the argument.

However, there are many shades of belief on both sides of this "debate" and quite frankly, these comments are derogatory and as constructive as blanket racism and xenophobia.

The simple fact of the matter is that I, like many others, believe that the testing of drugs, cosmetics, chemicals and other substances on animals is utterly unnecessary and motivated by outdated societal beliefs, financial motives on a massive scale and also laziness and complacency in the scientific community.

I believe that these will change and very much subscribe to the views of the likes of Leonardo Da Vinci, who said "The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of people".

To argue that animal testing benefits other animals is akin in some ways to stating that the experiments of Joseph Mengele, whilst abhorrent (and believe you me, they were), somehow benefitted mankind. Today, the means exist as much in the veterinary world as in the world of human medicine to model the effects of medicines without the cost of life in the name of saving lives. The cost of these methods, however, is another matter.... One cannot profess to care about animal lives whilst indulging in the wholesale taking of them, any more than someone who takes human lives can claim somehow to be a humanist. The fact that you believe that animals are somehow less valuable or worthy of life than a human and therefore are fair game for exploitation, in any way that you see fit, is your own opinion and with respect, in my opinion is based upon learned behaviour and "tradition", rather than realities.

I am glad to be apart from you in these beliefs and am also glad to see many others on this board share my view of the world. As you may be able to tell, I have strong views on this subject. Whilst I don't like or share the views which are oppositional to mine, I would invite posters on both sides of this argument to do the same, without descending to the level of playground insults and stereotyping of those who disagree with them. We are, after all, human.

Animal research is the only sensible avenue for medical/scientific progress. Treating lab animals humanely is a goal of all responsible scientists, just as treating a dead human body with respect is a goal of medical science.
Why do animal rights extremists not complain about human vivisection? It's been done forever. Why is it OK for AR extremists to rob graves and hold human bodies hostage to advance their causes? To terrorize the children of those they disagree with? To set bombs that may injure or kill innocent humans AND animals they profess to protect?
Claiming to protect animals and supporting those who intentionally set fires just doesn't compute. The AR message doesn't make sense. Medical and scientific research does.

Are we now to swallow the newest nonsense laid out by the AR Extremists - that animal tested drugs are killing humans? It's amazing how if one piece of propaganda doesn't work, they come up with another even more outlandish than the first.

Is it better for the dogs and cats to be euthanized the PETA way (given a shot in the back of a van and then thrown in a dumpster) or have them treated humanely in a lab with their lives having meaning?

Think people --- you were given a mind -- use it!!

Gillian Douglas Russellmakes the following statements.

"if animal research could be accurately extrapolated to humans then a human baby could be given a drug and dose that worked on a human- baby- sized rabbit. This does not happen and babies are given adult human drugs on a 'suck it and see' basis. "

OK Gillian, we're all aware that some drugs used to treat children have never been through proper clinical trials in children, this is a problem but is due to a large extent to the ethical concerns about conducting trials in children who cannot consent to being part of the trial. The discussion about how to solve this problem is ongoing but will no doubt result in tighter guidelines on the use of "adult" drugs on children. Are you really suggesting that the adult data is irrelevent to children? Surely any physician contemplating giving a drug to a child or start a clinical trial in children will want to examine all the available date from the drugs use in adults before taking the decision to proceed. Some of that information may not transfer directly to children, but to imply that this makes all adult data irrelevant is simply wrong. The same applies to animal studies, good scientists know when it is appropriate to extrapolate from animal tests to humans and when it is not, based on their knowledge of the different organisms.

"Cats have been given drugs that state 'For use in dogs only' as there was nothing licensed for cats. "

Thereby demonstrating that drugs designed for one species can often be used to treat other species.

"Unfortunately it is the wrong body or brain and produces scientific chaos. They are drowning in a sea of data and yet include the terms 'more research is needed' and/or 'the results of this work/drug on humans is unknown'.
This is the 21st century and it is long past time that only proper human based scientific methods are used"

The most ambitious scientists working in the field of systems biology and bioinformatics don't agree with you, here's just one example of a cutting edge project where knowledege obtained from rodents will enable science to build a computer model of the human brain (or part of it to begin with)
LINK

" The case rose to national prominence when the grave of a relative of the family that ran the farm was dug up and her body stolen. "


This statement tells me these extremists are mentally ill. I doubt they care about anything or anyone. Unless maybe they get ill or their kids and family fall ill and need medical treatment that could save their lives.

Those who scream the loudest are usually the first ones in line for help when they fall ill.

Medical science has progressed where it is today by using animals and if it were not permitted we would still be living in caves.

Then again with those type of radicals maybe that would not be so bad.

Medical experiments also help save animal lives not just human lives. Canines live longer now due to advanced medicine.

Laboratory Animals in the USA has more to worry about from the extremists burning, looting and killing those animals they they do from the experiments they fulfill.

I urge those who donate to the groups claiming to be do gooders to investigate where the funds are going before they donate. Most are Wolves in Sheeps clothing and use front running organizations to fund their deeds. Without funds their causes will cease to exist.

No one in their right mind would hesitate in making that choice.

Right? Right?

I support the humane use of animals in medical research.

When will we learn we just can't play God with these creatures? A rat is more than just a rat.
Life is life!
No matter what the animal is.
Our ill health and suffering is not their responsibilty, so why should we involve them with it?

We are too ignorant to the beauty and life force that exists within every single creature.

I won't give up fighting until every last soul has opened up to that essence of life and we all respect every animal and human alike

Hi, I am 13 years old. Thank you for the letters, I am reading all the interesting opinions. One thing I have noticed that bothers me is people jumping to conclusions. My family is very loving to animals, my mom and dad teaching us to respect all living beings, not to look down on any or up too high at any either. We don't wear aligator shoes or eat at burger king, we don't blow stuff up or hurt anybody. My parents aren't emotionally unbalanced, they are smart and they are kind. Please don't call people names just because they believe differently from you. When you do that, that makes you the terrorist. Listen politely please, remember where you grew up. I don't believe in using animals for experiments, that to me is the behaviour of terrorists. Thank you.

To the right or to the left of any issue we find extreemists. These are the individuals to be feared. Within any society there will be issues of contention but to maintain a working society the extreemist must come to the middle ground.

I do not condone the extreem conditions of the past, but the current attacks upon any use of animals to save human life is foolish and wrong thinking.

The infant child saved by data gained may be our future.

Animal Research should be winning against "animal rights".

At all levels of this planet's ecology there are organisms using other organisms to their own benefit. It is the web of life and cannot be altered by a few emotionally unstable humans who have inappropriate guilt for being a human and a thirst for a cult-like cause or purpose in life.

These zealots should focus their attention on the very real suffering of human children around the world. Once that little problem is solved then they can start working on bettering the lives of animals in captivity. To do so beforehand is simply hypocritical.

I support science and the responsible use of animals in research.

I wonder how many of the irrational people against using animals for medical research are willing to forego lifesaving medical treatment for themselves and their loved ones? You can't have it both ways.

And, you don't have the right to shove your personal beliefs down the throats of everyone else that puts a high value on the lives of themselves, friends and families.

I find most of these activists to be hypocritical and unable or unwilling to connect the dots. They'll denounce animal research, yet grab a burger at Burger King.

I challenge anyone with a leaning towards stopping research using animals to walk through a children's ward of terminal patients and tell me you'd still rather not have a cure...what if it was YOUR child?

Clearly, anyone that is willing to bomb, attack, harass or threaten legal researchers and institutions, has got to have a few screws loose in my opinion. You say you value life but your actions are not supporting your rhetoric.

If you want to save animals from research, why don't you volunteer yourself to medical research?

Get a job - then get a life!

100 years of Cancer "Research", 98 years of the RDS and more human cancer and new diseases than ever. Animal tested Prescription drugs are the 3rd biggest killer and thousands suffer side effects that never showed up in the rat/mouse or whatever was chosen. I was cured of hay fever by acupuncture when orthodox medicine failed, and in the 21st century alternatives to vivisection exist.If we trained doctors in nutrition(scandalous we don`t), boosted people`s immune systems and REALLY promoted health then we could make progress.

You will never win. To all the animals are free.

Animal research is not medical research. Most doctors have no idea what is going on, in their name, in the animal laboratories.
Paediatricians put their careers on the line because there are so few medicines licensed for children, yet the doctors will be prosecuted, rather than the drug company, if anything goes wrong.
Put simply:
if animal research could be accurately extrapolated to humans then a human baby could be given a drug and dose that worked on a human- baby- sized rabbit. This does not happen and babies are given adult human drugs on a 'suck it and see' basis.
Cats have been given drugs that state 'For use in dogs only' as there was nothing licensed for cats.
Some recent cancer research had to be stopped as the human cells had been 'contaminated' by mouse cells.
A common statement by animal researchers is that they need to test on 'the' whole body or 'the' whole brain. Unfortunately it is the wrong body or brain and produces scientific chaos. They are drowning in a sea of data and yet include the terms 'more research is needed' and/or 'the results of this work/drug on humans is unknown'.
This is the 21st century and it is long past time that only proper human based scientific methods are used.

I can't believe that animal testing is being blamed for adverse drug reactions. If the poster who mentioned the American Medical Association report from 1998 had actually read the report, or the more recent study by Munir Pirmohamed et al. (BMJ 2004) she'd have seen that the vast majority of adverse drug reactions (over 90%) were well known problems that have been identified a long time ago in either animal testing, clinical trials or post marketing surveillance. Most of these ADRs were caused by older drugs, many of which would probably fail current pre-clinical safety testing. Asperin alone is responsible for about 1 in 5 ADRs, ironic for a drug often described by antivivisectionists as harmfull to animals but safe for humans.

The Pirmohamed paper concluded that the majority of these ADR's could be avoided through better prescription and monitoring of patients. This would help avoid dangerous interactions with other prescription, over the counter or alternative medicines.

To place the blame for the unacceptably high number of ADR's on animal testing is not only insulting to the scientists working to develop new cures but also deflects attention from the real causes and solutions for the problem, as highlighted by recent statements by Professor Sir Mike Rawlings (LINK

It is so sad to me that so many people have been deluded over the years by people who call themselves animal rights activists. They are nothing but terrorists making a false claim to something that they obviously neither understand or care about. Not only that they obviously have absolutely idea how animals are truly treated (unless it is themselves on a so-called mission that is mis-treating them), they also don't understand science or research.
The work that is done benefits everyone, animals and humans alike. All of us have benefitted from the advancements in medicine that have been achieved through research. So if you are truly against animal research you better hope that neither you, or any loved ones, animals included, have any illness or accident befall you in your lifetime. Because to accept the care that your physician or veterinarian offers is to benefit from something that you claim to oppose.
Ethical researchers treat their purpose-bred animals with care and concern and know that what they do will benefit many.
Consider the ramifications of our lives and health if we did not have these dedicated individuals working for us all.

I am always a little more than sceptical of the motivations of those who decry the 'terrible slaughter of innocents' but have no compunction about harming or threatening other human beings. Animal research saves lives. What do terrorist tactics do? Who benefits?

Humans invented the concept of "rights". Rights are a social contract between humans who can confer those rights to each other. We collectively agree to what rights we all have.

As soon as animals gain the ability to understand the concept of rights and are willing to accept the social contract of "equality of rights", then, and only then, will animals have rights. Until then, there is no such thing as "Animal Rights", and those who fight for Animal Rights are only attempting to force a false concept onto the rest of society.

I'm disappointed but not surprised to see the usual straw man argument being trotted out by anti-vivisectionists, that "vivisectors" claim that experimentation on animals is the only way to make medical progress and that drug failures are somehow totally the fault of animal experimentation. This is nonsense on several levels, for a start "vivisectors" is a misleading term, nearly all scientists engaged in animal research spend as much if not more time using non-animal techniques, cell culture, gene screening, clinical observation etc. so to imply that they are wedded to a particular approach is simply misleading. If the funders such as the UK's MRC are so obsessed with animal research why do three quarters of the projects they fund not involve (alongside other methods) animal reseach, and why does animal research only account for about 10% of total biomedical research spending?

Animal research can only give scientists part of the whole picture, even if it's often a vital part. It cannot tell us everything, for example in the case of Vioxx it's unreasonable to expect that a side effect that didn't show up until tens of thousands of patients had taken the drug would be detected in pre-clinical animal tests that involved at most hundreds on animals. It is possible that animal tests can be designed that will pick up the types of problems that occured with Vioxx, after all this is what happened after the Thalidomide disaster. Once the problem had been identified tests on pregnant animals were designed that prevented a repetition of the thalidomide disaster, if thalidomide had been testes on animals before being given to mothers the disaster would have been avoided, but hindsight is a wonderfull thing.

People such as the Ray Greek will continue to peddle plausible but entirely misleading accounts of medical history that are based on distortion, omission and quoting out of context. Scientists must be prepared to counter these claims. As knowledge and technology progresses animal research and preclinical tests will eventually be superceeded and replaced, but for now it remains a key part of medical science but it is neither responsible for every medical advance in recent history nor for every medical setback.

Finally let me address the point a previous poster made that the money spent on animal research could be used to fund the NHS, the entire UK government science (including chemistry, physics etc.) budget is about 5% that of the NHS. Since Animal research gets less than 10% (probably less than 5%) of that it means that the money spent on animal research in the UK each year would fund the NHS for about a day. In reality this money would probably disappear without trace into the NHS.

Antibiotics, anaesthetics, vaccines, insulin for diabetes, open heart surgery, kidney dialysis and transplants, treatments for asthma, leukaemia and high blood pressure are just some of the major medical advances that have depended on the use of animals in medical research and testing. Though some valuable research may be achieved without animal testing, it is absolutely necessary for solving serious medical problems like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and malaria.

Psychologists learn more about behavior and these studies can be used to advance the welfare of people and animals. Research in psychology uses people and animals as subject.

Research labs are not only regulated by the Animal Welfare Act, but by their own animal welfare protocols such as the APA Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals. They also work with welfare groups and government to promote good practice in laboratory animal welfare. Nearly every major medical advance of the last century has depended upon research with animals. The health of animals also has improved due to animal research.

Year Scientist(s) Animal(s) Contributions Made
2004
Axel, Buck MouseOdorant receptors and the organization of the olfactory system

2003 Lauterbur, Mansfield Clam,rat Imaging of human internal organs with exact and non-invasive methods (MRI)

2002 Brenner, Horvitz, Sulston Roundworm Genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death

2000 Carlsson, Greengard, Kandel Mouse,
Guinea pig, sea slug
Signal transduction in the nervous system

1999 Blobel Various animal cells Proteins have intrinsic signals that govern their transport and localization in the cell.

1998
Furchgott, Ignarro, Murad Rabbit
Nitric oxide as signaling molecule in cardiovascular system

1997
Prusiner* Hamster, mouse
Discovery and characterization of prions

1996
Doherty, Zinkernagel Mouse
Immune-system detection of virus-infected cells

1995
Lewis, Wieschaus, Nusslein-Volhard Fruit fly
Genetic control of early structural development

1992
Fischer, Krebs Rabbit
Regulatory mechanism in cells

1991
Neher, Sakmann Frog
Chemical communication between cells

1990
Murray*, Thomas* Dog
Organ transplantation techniques

1989
Varmus, Bishop Chicken
Cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes

1987
Tonegawa Mouse
Basic principles of antibody synthesis

1986
Levi-Montalcini, Cohen Mouse, chick, snake
Nerve growth factor and epidermal growth factor

1984
Milstein, Kohler, Jerne Mouse
Techniques of monoclonal antibody formation

1982
Bergstrom, Samuelsson, Vane Ram, rabbit, guinea pig
Discovery of prostaglandins

1981
Sperry, Hubel*, Wiesel* Cat, monkey
Processing of visual information by the brain

1980
Benacerraf, Dausset, Snell Mouse, guinea pig Identification of histocompatibility antigens and mechanism of action

1979
Cormack, Hounsfield Pig
Development of computer assisted tomography (CAT scan)

1977
Guilemin, Schally, Yalow Sheep, swine
Hypothalamic hormones

1976
Blumberg, Gajdusek Chimpanzee
Slow viruses, and new mechanisms for dissemination of diseases

1975
Baltimore*, Dulbecco, Temin Monkey, horse, chicken, mouse
Interaction between tumor viruses and genetic material

1974
de Duve, Palade, Claude Chicken, guinea pig, rat
Structural and functional organization of cells

1973
von Frisch, Lorenz, Tinbergen Bee, bird Organization of social and behavioral patterns in animals

1972
Edelman, Porter Guinea pig, rabbit Chemical structure of antibodies

1971
Sutherland Mammalian liverMechanism of the actions of hormones

1970
Katz, von Euler, Axelrod Cat, rat
Mechanisms of storage and release of nerve transmitters

1968
Holley, Khorana, Nirenberg Rat
Interpretation of genetic code and its role in protein synthesis

1967
Harttline, Granit, Wald Chicken, rabbit, fish, crab
Primary physiological and chemical processes of vision

1966
Rous, Huggins Rat, rabbit, hen
Tumor-inducing viruses and hormonal treatment of cancer

1964
Bloch, Lynen Rat
Regulation of cholesterol and fatty acid metabolism

1963
Eccles, Hodgkin, Huxley Cat, frog, squid, crab
Ionic involvement in excitation and inhibition in peripheral and central portions of the nerve

1961
von Bekesy Guinea pig
Physical mechanism of simulation in the cochlea

1960
Burnet, Medawar Rabbit
Understanding of acquired immune tolerance

1957
Bovet Dog, rabbit
Production of synthetic curare and its action on vascular and smooth muscle

1955
Theorell Horse
Nature and mode of action of oxidative enzymes

1954
Enders, Weller, Robbins Monkey, mouse
Culture of poliovirus that led to development of vaccine

1953
Krebs, Lipmann Pigeon
Characterization of the citric acid cycle

1952
Waksman Guinea pig
Discovery of streptomycin

1951
Theiler Monkey, mouse
Development of yellow fever vaccine

1950
Kendall, Hench, Reichstein Cow
Antiarthritic role of adrenal hormones

1949
Hess, Moniz Cat
Functional organization of the brain as a coordinator of internal organs

1947
Carl Cori, Gerty Cori
Houssay Frog, toad, dog
Catalytic conversion glycogen; role of pituitary in sugar metabolism

1945
Fleming, Chain, Florey Mouse
Curative effect of penicillin in bacterial infections

1944
Erlanger, Gasser Cat
Specific functions of nerve cells

1943
Dam, Doisy Rat, dog, chick, mouseDiscovery of function of vitamin K

1939
Domagk Mouse, rabbit
Antibacterial effects of prontosil

1938
Heymans Dog
Role of the sinus and aortic mechanisms in regulation of respiration

1936
Dale, Loewi Cat, frog, bird, reptile
Chemical transmission of nerve impulses

1935
Spemann Amphibian
Organizer effect in embryonic development

1934
Whipple, Murphy, Minot Dog
Liver therapy for anemia

1932
Sherrington, Adrian Dog, cat
Functions of neurons

1929
Eijkman, Hopkins Chicken
Discovery of antineuritic and growth stimulating vitamins

1928
Nicolle Monkey, pig, rat, mouse
Pathogenesis of typhus

1924
Einthoven Dog
Mechanism of the electrocardiograph

1923
Banting, Macleod Dog, rabbit, fish
Discovery of insulin and mechanism of diabetes

1922
Hill, Meyerhof Frog
Consumption of oxygen and lactic acid metabolism in muscle

1920
Krogh Frog
Discovery of capillary motor regulating system

1919
Bordet Guinea pig, horse, rabbit
Mechanisms of immunity

1913
Richet Dog, rabbit
Mechanisms of anaphylaxis

1912
Carrel Dog
Surgical advances in the suture and grafting of blood vessels

1910
Kossel Bird
Knowledge of cell chemistry through work on proteins including nuclear substances

1908
Metchnikov, Ehrlich Bird, fish, guinea pigImmune reactions and functions of phagocytes

1907
Laveran Bird
Role of protozoa as cause of disease

1906
Golgi, Cajal Dog, horse
Characterization of the central nervous system

1905
Koch Cow, sheep
Studies of pathogenesis of tuberculosis

1904
Pavlov Dog
Animal responses to various stimuli

1902
Ross Pigeon
Understanding of malaria life cycle

1901
von Behring Guinea pig
Development of diphtheria antiserum
______________________

Here are what opponents to animal research ￂﾖ none of them scientists ￂﾖ have to say.

Chris DeRose. Former actor, Director of Last Chance for Animals. "If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."

Ingrid Newkirk. President and co-founder of PETA. ￂﾓEven if animal research were to produce a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it."

Bill Maher. Comedian and PETA celebrity spokesman. "To those people who say, 'My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say, 'Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade-off."

Michael W. Fox. Veterinarian and former advisor to the Humane Society of the United States. "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."

Alex Pacheco. Co-founder of PETA. "We feel animals have the same rights as a retarded human child."

Bruce Friedrich. PETA campaign coordinator. ￂﾓ ... I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all of the fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate.ￂﾔ

Steven Best, PhD. Philosophy professor, University of Texas in El Paso. Member of the Animal Liberation Press Office "We will break the law and destroy property until we win."

I simply do not understand this kind of reasoning and the animal rights crowd loses all credibility when their leaders and spokespeople make these kinds of statements.

I'm glad that Great Britain is taking strong positions against animal rights terrorists. Whether anyone believes vivisection and medical research testing with animals is valid and useful or not, nothing changes the fact that someone's research or facility is that person's or organization's property to which no one else has a right even for benevolent purposes, let alone destructive purposes.

Perhaps in specific instances, there is good reason to re-examine how experimental animals are maintained in research facilities. Perhaps in other instances, there is good reason to re-examine the
validity and necessity of using experimental animals. But if this is true--and I don't know that it
is--let the conversation take place in a civilized manner, as conversation, not burning and trashing of someone else's property.

War, which any violence to anyone or any property
is, is the failure of diplomacy. The animal rights terrorists do not serve their own cause well by warring with medical researchers. The British
authorities do well to stop such warfare on their own soil.

On many levels human and non-human animals are different. Most animal diseases donￂﾒt occur in humans and major killers of humans are very rare in non-humans. We respond differently to various substances. Remember Vioxx? Remember Thalidomide? Whatever the outcome of costly animal models, whether itￂﾒs in drug trials, organ transplants or whatever, we then have to experiment on humans. There is no way around this as we are different. Nearly the same genetically still makes us different!

Even pro-vivisectionist must wonder about animals models when they read time and again in the health sciences literature that the information gained (based on animal models) cannot be extrapolated to humans. These are not isolated comments. Why spend all those research dollars on something that canￂﾒt help us when there are many wonderful methods already available which advance medical science and do not pose a risk to anyone? Maybe if research dollars we channeled into these other proven areas we would see some progress. We appear to be in the status quo if not getting sicker generally, even though billions of dollars are thrown into animal research each year. Further, if only a tiny fraction of what is spend on vivisection was spent on education and prevention the need for medical intervention would plummet. It is well known that lifestyle factors account for most diseases in humans.

Vivisection ￂﾖ live animal experimentation - is not only a massive, lucrative industry it is a huge human rights issue. As such we need transparency, public accountability and most urgently open academic debate which to my knowledge rarely, if ever, takes place. Many academics, researchers, clinicians and members of the public are aware of the specious nature of animal models and speak out against the medical-industrial-pharmaceutical-political complex and should be respected for the personal risk they take.

Respectfully,
Susan

PS. A history of insulin can be read in ￂﾓSacred Cows and Golden Geeseￂﾔ by Ray Greek, MD and Jean Swingle Greek, DVM. This book and ￂﾓSpecious Scienceￂﾔ by the same authors should be added to the prior suggested reading.

Scientific research with the use of animals is an important part of developing safe and effective medical treatments for humans and animals. Benefits gained through legitimate animal research include; transplantation, immunology, genetics, reproduction, cancer, behavior, aging, toxicology, etc. I believe the scientists and researchers who work with animals do so out of necessity and have the foresight to realize the positive contribution they make to life.

Many posters have claimed that thousands of people die from the use of drugs tested on animals. The conclusion they suggest is that people are suffering and dying because the drugs were tested on animals or that animal testing has no benefit. This is highly misleading.

Drugs do not enter general use without undergoing human tests. Animal tests and other screening methods narrow the thousands of possible drugs that could be tested to a relative few that show promise.

No one wants to do animal tests if for no reason other than that they are expensive. But so far better, more reliable techniques are not available. Progress is being made and as an animal lover I hope the day comes when substitutes for animal research are available, but that time is not here.

It is a valid point of view to say that the benefits do not justify animal testing on an ethical basis, but to deny the benefits is dishonest or uninformed.

I do hope that people who oppose all animal testing will deny themselves the use of any medicines or products developed using animals. To do anything else is to be a hypocrite, like a founder of PETA, who is an insulin-dependant diabetic. The importance of insulin was discovered in research using animals, the drug was developed using animal testing, and, until recently, most insulin was produced from animal sources.

How many infants would have died in the US and the world if scientists and doctors had not worked together to learn how to solve heart problems. In the 18th and 19th centuries thousands died because of disease that through medical research we no longer have to fear.
Every child receives immunizations to keep them healthy. Smallpox, measels and mumps are basically things of the past. I had a best friend when I was young in the mid 50's that did not receive the polio vaccines. We played together until he could not play with me anymore because he had gotten polio. This tragedy was totally preventable due to animal research and in fact the life saving techniques they used to save his life (the iron lung) was also developed using animal research.
How many children have died because AR extremists want to sit in judgement as they wear their leather or aligator shoes and tell me it is wrong to do the needed research to save the life of a child. I am a nurse, I have participated in research and I will tell you without animals (who are treated very well I might add) we would not have made the medical advances that we have.
So all of you zealots out there can sit on your ivory towers and spout all the garbage that you would like. But while you are doing that, please do not use any of those medical advances that have come from medical research. Don't use birth control pill, heart medicine, insulin, viagra, or any of the other thousands of medications that have been developed to save lives. Do not give your children the recommended childhood vaccinations, so they will die of diseases that have been all but wiped out. Don't use your computer because that was developed by scientist who use animals in research to save lives. Oh, and please don't use any plastics as NASA developed some of those for use in space with the animals that went up there. By all means move out of your comfortable homes and into a cave and become a vegitarian and never eat anymore meat or meat products, and while you are at it remember that nice warm coat with the fiberfill to keep you so very warm? Again a fiber that was developed by those same scientists that you are so very adamant against. Don't own any animals because that would be wrong. Get you a stone axe to cut up the deadfall wood you find to make your fire to keep you warm and leave those of us who have the good common sense to see that all these things are not evil but gifts from God to help us live better so we can be closer to him. Wear your vegatable fiber clothes and shoes and do not try to force your beleifs on me or mine.
I will watch the research world and make sure the animals are well taken care of and live a better life because they sacrificed their life to make my life better. I will honor them with my words and my deeds and keep all my pets close.
In the bible in Genisis the good Lord gave man the dominion over the animals and said take care of them for me. He did not make me subservient to them or their torturer. the Bible also talks about using the animals, and about how to care for them even if it is on Sunday when no work is suppose to be done. I will follow the blueprint that the good Lord chose to give me and ignore the nonsense that those who do not walk the walk care to spout. (Oh for those who do not know the Bible is a book all about the world and how to survive in it. Read it sometime it could be interesting.)

As a person who has suffered from a panic disorder for roughly 25 years, for which I have been taking prescribed medication, the efficacy and saftey of which was first tested on animals before being deemed appropriate for human use ... I feel somewhat qualified to comment on the spectacular success which is vivisection. #*!! Twenty-five years later and not only do I still have the panic disorder but it seems I've developed a blood disorder as well, not to mention some cognitive impairment, etc. On a personal level, I feel a deep, ineffable sadness that any laboratory animals had to suffer so that I could live my life more comfortably; disgust that the pseudo-scientists who developed this drug were given funds to do so, and totally insulted by the pharmaceutical company that has profitted hugely from it and is in no way liable for what happened to me and thousands like me, because THAT is what those animal tests were really all about, establishing a legal alibi. It is doubtful that any of the animals used and abused in testing this drug suffered from a panic disorder themselves as this (disorder) seems to be a human phenomenon.

Some of the comments I have read in support of animal testing are astounding but the one that leaves me completely baffled is the one that suggests that the lives of many shelter animals who would normally be euthanized is given some meaning when used for testing at veterinary schools instead. There are a lot of homeless people in the city where I live, many of their lives seem to be lacking direction and perhaps some would say meaning. I would be absolutely appalled if anybody suggested shipping them off to the vivisectors' laboratories to give their lives more "meaning".

While I realize that I do not have the scientific background that many of your readers possess, I write from experience, and with sincerity. For those of you who are pro-research: please do not be so quick to assume that all of us who are opposed to it are "extremists", or that it's not so much that we love animals but hate humans. I am very concerned about human health and safety, that is why I believe that all vivisection must be abolished.

All those people in favour of animal testing should just imagine something for 1 minute. Think about ur lives now, how wonderful n free you are, you can say, do n eat what you want.
Imagine being stolen from your home, waking up in a cold, steel and tiny cage where you cannot even stand up in. Looking out at the teasing faces of those you put you there making sure you're still fit for suffering. Day after day you are condemed for moving, put in a metal chair like that used by executioners and have the screws tightened to make ur delicate skull crack. Tubes forced down ur throat n nose, 2 people holding you down. Botox injected into ur little eyes. It would be torture n fear day after day after day. Put yourselves in their position, stop being selfish, I believe that nothing justifies that level of suffeirng, not even science. I would not want medicines if this is what has been done to get them. Thank-you

In a country where nobody cares for no one and where the cultural identity has been lost ages ago, furtunately some care for the animals. Their means could be criticised as violent but since there is no other option it is necessary. Science should be used for the good of all living creatures and not only for the good of the self-destructive human race against the helpless race of the animal kingdom. We say no to the big multinational pharmaceutical companies even with non conventional methods !

It is time for the vivisectors and politicians to understand that more people every day learn the truth and demand vivisection to stop. Hundreds of humans died because animal tested medicine were licenced for human use. Thousands of consumers prefer products not tested on animals - and it would be the same with medicine. Profit cannot always be an excuse for violence and you cannot hide the truth forever...

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love." - Pythagoras

At a time when more Americans are dying of adverse drug reactions from 'medicine' prescribed by doctors than die of cancer or heart disease, making thus the doctor and his prescription drugs the number one menace to public health in the USA(see 'Death by Medicine' at LINK ) (a fact echoed by the limited studies on the question done in other 'advanced' countries, like the UK and France), we hear researchers (who would be out of lavish government grants to live on, without the excuse of their costly animal research) make claims that the 'problem' is simply one of 'dosage'. Any smokescreen will do, to cloud the issue, as long as it continues to keep the public in the dark about the inutility and invalidity of research for human health done on animals. What is really needed is a completely different approach to human health, which focuses, logically, on prevention of disease, not the treatment of symptoms once our indulgences and abuses come back to haunt us.

RESEARCH WINNING WAR WITH EXTREMISTS -- This is excellent news. Animals in research are absolutely necessary to improve both human and animal health and welfare. Saying that discoveries from animal research don't apply to species other than the ones experimented on is pursuing the policy known as "The Big Lie," laid out by Adolf Hitler in his book "Mein Kampf" --the crucial technique is to use a really big lie, so big most people won't believe it is a lie because how could you get away with it? Then you repeat it constantly. Don't get distracted by contrary facts but just keep repeating your message, and eventually nearly everyone will believe you. This is a powerful psychological technique, but fortunately, in this case it is not working.

Legitimate animal research has saved the lives of innumerable humans and improved the lives of many more. While animal rights fanatics would have us believe that this is evil, I support the legitimate research efforts of the scientists and researchers dedicated to improving and saving the lives of people everywhere. In addition, the lives of many animals destined for euthanasia at shelters are given some meaning when used for teaching at veterinary schools. They are treated humanely and compassionately by the students while at the school, then used to teach surgical techniques while under anesthesia then euthanized while still under anesthesia. The knowledge gained by the students saves the lives of countless animals in the ensuing years of their careers. The animal rights fanatics would have us believe that any use of an animal is wrong, even as a seeing eye dog. I obviously do not agree with them, and as stated above, support animal welfare and legitimate animal research.

when I was a little girl, only two things sent me scrambling behind the sofa. One was Darlicks, the other was Nazis. Both of these liberally used the word: "exterminate". I hated that word then, as now. I also hate the word "undulate", used to describe how the ground looked, what with gasses rising from mass Nazi graves. Listen to this word: "Vivisection". What sort of horror and evil does a word like that conjure up? I HATE the word vivisection, which describes perfectly the horrors which are associated with it. Please God, some one get those animals out of there! It doesn't matter what the cost, or what it takes. Vivisection must be squashed, for the sake of humanity, and the animal kingdom. Thank you.

Since at least 70,000 people, yes that is SEVENTY THOUSAND die every year in the UK and over 100,000 in the US, (American Medical Association, 1998), all from medical drugs tested and passed through animal research, and at least 1 in 10 beds is taken up with people dying from animal tested drugs, I believe the public should be told the truth about vivisection - that it kills both people and animals. The differences between species is obvious to children, so why not to scientists. It is not the fact that we all have hearts and a blood supply and the usual organs, (although even with organs there are differences, for example rats have no gall bladder and digest food differently),but that some grow fur, some hair, and some are large and some small! It is here, at the cell level, where the real differences lie. Animal rights campaigners are not against scientific research, they get ill like anyone else, but they want real science, not this pseudo, money spinning research that is carried out by vivisectors. People are animals too, but their species differs from all the other species, as do rats from mice, guinea pigs from hamsters and cats from dogs.

Vivisecters always make sweeping claims that medical progress is due to experiments on animals but provide no evidence to support this. Some readers claim human lives have been saved through experiments on animals, but again do not present any evidence. The antis say animals cannot predict what happens in humans. An open public debate would be interesting, but those who support vivisection are opposed to such a move. Why, if they are convinced it works? So where does the truth lie? If animal experiments are relevant to humans then surely we should be seeing an improvement in health. So perhaps some-one can explain why, despite all the resources of the 20th century, including years of experiments upon billions of animals, countless new drugs, diagnostic and screening equipment, increased knowledge and skills, more hospitals, and billions poured into research etc... we have more sickness and disease today than at any time in history, new diseases unheard of before and drug related diseases have reached epidemic proportions! I think the statistics speak for themselves.

Recent drug tragedies such as the botched TGN1412 trials and the news that the pregrncy pill DES that increases the risk of cancer in children born to those mothers who took it are just the tip of the iceberg. All were tested in animals.
How many more tragedies will it take to convince the public that animal experiments simply don't work?
Three decades ago the head of Merck dreamed aloud of the day when the definition of disease would be so broad that his company could "sell to everyone" like chewing gum.
Humans and non-human animals deserve better.

It's always amusing to witness the ignorance of those who defend vivisection, such as when they state that the practice benefits animals as well as people. Which animals? Certainly not the countless millions of laboratory animals that are tortured to death annually (tortured meaning extraction of information through extreme pain).

As artificially created diseases in animals are in no way comparable to diseases arising spontaneously in other animals, vivisection in this area too is as equally useless and misleading as research into human diseases.

The scientific case against vivisection is well established, with the growing legacy of human carnage - 100,000 deaths annually through animal ￂﾑsafetyￂﾒ tested drugs in the USA - and the out-of-control ￂﾑhealth-careￂﾒ expenditure the proof.

ￂﾓAnimal-based research, prompted by a thirst for grants and inspired by a mechanistic concept of health that stolidly ignores biological laws, is an impasse from which there will never be found a way out.ￂﾔ ￂﾖ medical historian Hans Ruesch.

Recommended reading: Vivisection or Science, by Prof. Pietro Croce; Slaughter of the Innocent, by Hans Ruesch.

The person who declared that research on one species is relevant to other species only by chance obviously doesn't know any history! Every medical advance of the 20th and 21st Centuries, and many of earlier times, was developed by comparing various animal species to each other, including human beings -- who are animals, mammals, primates, and thus in a continuum with the rest of the species on earth. In turn, veterinary medicine is advanced by the use of therapies perfected first for use in humans.

Such life-saving therapies as heart transplants and other surgical procedures were perfected on animals before being tried on humans. Diabetes therapies, including the use of insulin, were developed, in part, by working with diabetic animals. Medications to treat many different conditions are developed by testing on animals first, followed by testing on humans; in turn, many of these life-saving medications are made available for use in our pet animals and in livestock. Another example of benefits to animals as well as humans: following the development for use in humans, kidney transplants are now available for cats with kidney disease.

The understanding of human (and animal) anatomy, physiology and biochemistry that we have was developed by looking at organisms at many different levels.

Doctors are trained on animals as well as on human patients; do you really want to be the first human patient a surgeon has touched, if he hasn't perfected his techniques on some other species first? I surely would not!

The leaders of the Animal Rights movement have made their positions abundantly clear over the decades. See this link for a variety of quotes: LINK Note, also, that they do not love animals, so much as they seem to hate humans!

Sheila J Gross, PhD, New Jersey, USA

Animal research benefits animals and people; without it a veterinary practice would not be possible at all. Most of us would not be alive were it not for animal research. We'd have no anesthetics, no antibiotics, no vaccines. If you want a chilling and true historical account of life during an epidemic before there was biomedical research, I urge you to read Hans Zinsser's "Rats, Lice, and History." I also urge you to read "The Highjacking of the Humane Movement: Animal Extremism" by Patti and Rod Strand, to see how "common knowledge" has been subjected to insidious propaganda by the members of the animal rights movement.

The Research Defence Society might be feeling awfully smug at present in its perceived success at convincing the public of the ￂﾑnecessityￂﾒ of animal experimentation.

However, whilst those opposed to vivisection are denigrated in every way possible, the worrying fact is that despite an alleged desire for such a thing by those who defend vivisection, honest, open debate on the subject is non-existent. Witness the recent Newsnight programme, where heckling on the part of those engaged in animal research, and attempts by the host at confining the debate to whether it is right that one should swat mosquitoes, sees the ￂﾑdebateￂﾒ relegated to the level of the playground.

Consider also the Pro-test group who, clearly threatened by the possibility of the light of truth escaping, feel the need to try to scupper an Early Day Motion asking for an independent evaluation of whether testing drugs intended for humans actually works; so much for open debate.

Meanwhile, the tongue-in cheek-claims for the ￂﾑhealth-benefitsￂﾒ of animal-tested junk medicine provide endless merriment among informed TV viewers and newspaper readers, even if they are less appreciated by the countless thousands of human beings who, injured, maimed or slain by it, are also victims of the sham of vivisection.

We only hope that the defenders of vivisection are never asked to publicly substantiate their claims, which would clearly be extremely embarrassing both for themselves, their pharmaceutical industry paymasters, and parliamentary and media puppets.

Chris Pedler

Medical research saves human lives, even the lives of those who would stop all animal testing for any purpose. Granted, although animal lives may be lost in the research process, the benefits to humans far outweigh the loss to animals.

I believe that research on animals is beneficial to humans AND to animal species. Without such research, the presently available information for veterinarians as well as for human medical doctors would not be available. While research is necessary, it is also necessary to provide for the proper welfare of research animals. The Animal Welfare Act in the US has pretty well covered welfare for research animals. In fact, from my conversations with researchers working with animals, the care and the monitoring of that care and the record keeping regarding that care have greatly increased the costs of doing the research. It is critically important that the public do not accept the agenda of the animal rights 'Taliban' who would control everything related to animals. While they profess to care about animals, their actions speak louder than their words. They release domestic raised animals into the wild, to starve or become a predator's meal. They harass and torment researchers and their families. These are the acts of terrorists, not the acts of compassionate humans. We members of the public need to show our support for those who do the research work. They are saving lives and they are providing for improved quality of life for others.

For decades, the vivisection syndicate and its political and media agents and friends have been asked to produce valid evidence that their practices have a sound, scientific basis. The House of Lords, the inspector at the appeal against refusal for the Cambridge lab., various independent bodies and the genuine AV movement have all failed to elicit any response.
The govt. dont want any science-based investigation and The Syndicate have actively tried to persuade MPs not to sign the EDM calling for an appraisal.
However, we are treated to liberal doses of opinions, slogans, mantras : ￂﾓmost doctors believeￂﾔ, ￂﾓmost scientists agreeￂﾔ, ￂﾓthe general public is of the opionionￂﾔ, ￂﾓNobel Prizes have been wonￂﾔ, ￂﾓmost major medical advances have relied upon animal ￂﾓ, etc., etc, : all easily-refuted waffle.

The passionate extremists who threaten animal researchers and damage property do their cause more harm than good because they focus media attention on their sensational behavior instead of on the lack of scientific validity for applying results obtained on one species to another. Every species has unique characteristics that render results obtained on one inapplicableto another except by random coincidence. The recent TGN1412 trial disaster is just one example of the harm that can befall humans from relying on the responses of other soecies.

Let us all remind ourselves that the most powerful critics of vivisection are scientists who themselves were animal researchers. It takes a lot of courage and critical thinking to challenge a system that perpetuates the myth that tormenting healthy animals will help to cure sick people. You can't fool all of the people all of the time...

"The 21st century will be the century of ethics, or it will not be at all" (Andre Malraux).