Vital vivisection

October 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 login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments


Featured jobs