Wild reasoning

September 24, 2004

Nancy Rothwell can justify vivisection only by raising irrelevant issues (Columnist, September 17). She says donations to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals normally exceed those to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. In fact, the opposite is true. She considers veterinary bills excessive but overlooks the fact that the National Health Service shields people from a knowledge of its high costs. She refers to animals killed for meat and killed by cats. But what relevance do these have to animal experimentation?

Yet she fails to mention a survey of 500 GPs that shows a staggering level of distrust in results from animal experiments and she overlooks those who had their lives ruined by "safe" animal-tested drugs. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs is the fourth leading cause of death in the US. And this is supposed to be "science"?

Gillian D. Russell

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

Admissions Officer

Cranfield University

Student Researcher

University Of Greenwich

Recruitment Officer (Channel Management)

University College Dublin (ucd)

Assistant Professor in Finance

Durham University