The debate on whether the scientific community should use animals for experiments is longstanding and will be ongoing for the foreseeable future. Scientists cannot simply 'cease and desist' as the [BUAV] article suggests.

My vision for the future would be for all scientists to be engaged in the 3Rs in order to improve animal welfare; increase funding for research into alternatives; and finally, continue to work with industry stakeholders that use animals to encourage best practice in applying the 3Rs. These are the current goals that the NC3Rs is working to achieve.

Vicky Robinson, Chief Executive of the NC3Rs
The NC3Rs works to replace, refine and reduce animals in experiments.

To the uninformed, Michelle Thew's

i) Michelle gives as one of her examples of misleading animal experiments the devastating adverse effects produced in healthy human volunteers following injection of the CD28 superagonistic antibody TGN1412. Everybody who uses animals knows that while many species respond similarly to many agents, different species may sometimes respond differently. We have learned a huge amount from the TGN1412 tragedy, including the fact that the wrong animal models were used; further animal experiments have probably revealed the explanation (See Pollardy & Hunig (2010) Br. J Pharmacol 161:509). This will inform future investigations of these completely novel agents and inform the choice of species used. Mice with humanized immune systems, although not yet perfected, may eventually be a solution to this problem as well as to developing novel treatments/vaccines for e.g. HIV infection.

ii) Michelle ignores the fact that drugs and vaccines must also be developed for veterinary use to treat/prevent animal diseases. I am unclear how we are supposed to circumvent the use of appropriate animal species in these situations.

iii) Everybody who uses animals here in the UK does so only when there is no appropriate alternative and follows the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement. This is enshrined in the new European Directive 2010/63/EU and so will apply to the whole of the EU by 2013.
Brian Furman

We all want to see an end to the use of animals in research and testing. The BUAV article seems to suggest that we could stop it all tomorrow. Why not?
The fact is that animal research is essential if we want to continue to make progress in science and medicine. Yes, there is much effort going into developing 'alternatives' but they are not as advanced as antivivisection groups would have you believe.

The ethical position framed by BUAV seems to be a little simplistic - i.e. if we don't use people in invasive research then we shouldn't use animals. Most of us eat meat (which is far from essential), so it seems that such an 'animal rights' ideology is not widely accepted.

The ethical imperative is to improve our scientific understanding and develop vaccines, treatments and cures for dreadful conditions such as malaria, Alzheimer's and muscular dystrophy. And if we have not yet developed good stroke treatments, for instance, we should redouble our efforts, not give up.
This is not the end justifying the means, but using all the best methods at our disposal in a responsible and humane way. Anyone who has been inside UK animal facilities will know that animal research is conducted responsibly, humanely and within tight legal controls. It is animal welfare that matters, not animal rights.
Barbara Davies

I truly believe that reasoned and calm debate is the way forward, the public are very much in the dark about the truth surrounding animal experimentation and if we were informed in this manner, i believe more people would get involved in the debate and ask more questions. I think that a lot of the general public believe that the campaigns and movements for ending animal testing is all about extremists breaking into laboratories, this may cloud the message that these passionate and caring people and movement such as the BUAV are trying to get across. Education is the way forward, and I truly hope that we will see an end to animal testing in our lifetime.
Victoria Maguire

All of the 'alternative' techniques listed here are useful scientific methodologies that can be helpful in answering some questions, but which are subject to particular artefacts and limitations.
It is not possible to find answers to many key questions about the brain through imaging studies or human tissue studies - they are limited as all methods are, and need to be used appropriately.
I find it surprising that awareness of the 3Rs within the scientific community is so poor, since a good understanding of the 3Rs is key to the training required for a personal licence under ASPA.
Perhaps these members of the scientific community [that responded to the NC3Rs survey] did not work in life sciences?
Bella Williams

Respondents to the NC3Rs survey were personal and project licence holders working under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The aim was to find the level of understanding and support for the 3Rs and barriers to implementation. The survey results can be found at www.nc3rs.org.uk/opinionsurvey
Mark Prescott

Quote from the article by The Dr Hadwen Trust: "Following decades of advances in medical research, compelling scientific arguments against animal experimentation have been added to the classical ethical issues surrounding animal use in research. The validity of animal models has been challenged repeatedly, and pursuing research on animals has been shown to often produce conflicting or confusing results, which do not always relate to humans, due to differences between species." Of course if the DHT was testing it's hypotheses properly - and setting appropriate robust protocols for its assertions - it would state that "Following decades of advances in medical research, compelling scientific arguments show that animal experimentation is crucial and currently irreplaceable in the work undertaken to understand the causes of disease and to find treatments and cures." It is utterly disingenuous of the DHT to imply that scientists do not account for and understand the difference between species. It is the differences between us and rats that make it possible to test on them ethically. The massive similarities between us and rats makes testing on them useful and scientifically sound – and morally acceptable; unless we take the view that we should leave many serious diseases, present in humans and animals, untreated - and that the subsequent human and animal suffering would be defensible.
Karen Gardner