Vital vivisection

十月 1, 2004

Kathy Archibald and Gillian Russell (Letters, September 17 and 24) show gritty determination not to allow overwhelming scientific evidence, public opinion and the findings of the House of Lords' Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures to get in the way of antivivisectionist views.

Some 90 per cent of the British public support the humane use of animals in medical research, according to a MORI poll. The select committee stated: "There is at present a continued need for animal experimentation." I believe The Lancet reflects the views of medical practitioners better than a flawed poll of GPs carried out by an antivivisectionist group. It said on September 4: "The use of animals in medical research and safety testing is a vital part of the quest to improve human health."

We need more information on what scientists do in their research and why, and we need a well-informed and open debate. We're unlikely to achieve this while the views of antivivisectionists - based on half-truths and unsubstantiated statements - appear in the media unchallenged.

Ted Griffiths
The Biomedical Research Education Trust, London

Please
or
to read this article.

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论