The use of animals as research subjects should be almost totaly eliminated. Just in cases in which is demonstrated over any doubt that it is necesary and that the experiment will give some information capable of saving lifes, should be allowed. Also in these few cases, extreme cares for the maximal well being of the animals should be taken. We have made a hell in the earth for the animals. Its is time to stop this.

Stressed animals are not physiologically normal due to increased production of corticosteroid hormones which suppress immunological function. The only way to produce valid data from animal studies is to first ensure that study subjects are maintained in entirely non-stressful conditions. Animal studies should not be accepted for publication in scientific journals without proof that the subjects' cortisol levels are maintained at normal levels. This would ensure that animals used in research would be kept in conditions as close to their natural habitat as possible and would be cared for by humans with a vested interest in their well-being.

The main link "click here to download the full poll results" in this news doesn't work. So I cann't see poll result.

[Editor's note: apologies! This has now been fixed]

Mr Brian Jones presents a common view: that by making a single measurement - cortisol level - you can adequately assess the 'stress' of an animal. Furthermore, that higher than normal cortisol levels are invariably negative. This is a highly reductionistic and simplistic view of animal physiology and behaviour. Our ability to survive and adapt to changes in our environment depends on a whole organism, integrated physiological response, only one component of which is release of cortisol. Elevated cortisol levels are part of a positive adaptive process, which in most cases is strongly beneficial in the short and long-term, because we become better adapted to everyday 'stressors'. This is what happens when we exercise, for example. It is worth noting that in the Swiss study cited, marmosets that underwent mild early deprivation for an hour or two a day for the first month of life(see Nature report), had basal cortisol levels that were LOWER than their control twins at the end of the month. These data were misinterpreted by a Swiss ethical committee, who used these measurements of cortisol levels as their prime evidence that, 'the research project imposes severe stress on the experimental animals' and so this search for a better animal model of chronic depression, which affects 10-15% of humans, was stopped.

Animals helping us now will enable us to help them better in the future.

The results of the poll suggest that biomedical researchers around the world "feel that pressures from the animal rights movement and others makes it difficult to voice opinions in public."

The historical record makes it quite clear that the animal rights/antivivisection movement is exactly the reason that any welfare regulation exists. The claim that the impetus for change is the reason researchers don't voice their opinions in public is grotesque.

Though not a scientist, I've spent nearly thirty-five years managing a foundation for patients with a neurodegenerative disorder through no fault of their own. Bottom line: would you want your parents or your children to take a medication not first thoroughly tested in animal studies, especially non-human primates?

I work on Xenopus (frog), we get the eggs of females and fertilize these eggs with male sperm. Males have to be killed to get the sperm. Females can be kept for long times, but right now we have to kill them in our lab because of technical reasons. We obtain hundreds of embryos by this fertilization technique enough for many experiments.

When I have to kill a frog, sometimes I have nightmares that night. Once, I could not get enough eggs, and I had to kill that female. That night, that female was a giant frog, and I was in her belly, searching for eggs, trying to find my way "in her" body.

I love animals, I volunteered for wildlife rehabilitation centers. I grew up with pets. I spent a year (and lots of my own money) as an undergrad student, coordinating a volunteer project to improve conditions in zoos (in my home country, zoos are in very bad condition).

However, I believe, the curiosity that boosts scientists to do whatever they are doing, that "solving the puzzle" feeling is the central point here. We, as scientists, have been using animals for centuries, to learn about life/biology. And I cannot see an alternative way for that today. I will have nightmares, but I know that this is the only way. At least for now, no technology provides any better alternative. Computer science, imaging technologies are great. But nothing can "simulate" the real life.

Sad but true.

Kevan Martin is critical of the simplistic view that single cortisol values relate directly to harmful effects of stress and he is correct. Nevertheless there is ample published evidence that cortisol polarises cytokine production towards type 2 and thus diminishes cell-mediated immune function. Prolonged stressful conditions alter immune function away from the norm and therefore stressed subjects are not suitable for most research studies. This should be taken into account by journal referees and editors when assessing work involving animals. This would surely enforce the more stringent observance of animal care regulations.

The great majority of your respondents see the elimination of animal experiments as a desirable goal (irrespective of whether they think it is achievable or not). Like Prof. Blakemore, I do not know of a single scientist who would not prefer to use alternatives if they were available. This almost universal feeling in the scientific community is not reflected in the level of funding, development, communication or basic knowledge of alternative methodologies. That is to say, there is a lot of words and almost no action.

As an absolute minimum first step, the 3Rs concept should be converted into a working reality. Despite its oft-touted position as a cornerstone of today's science, in reality a majority of scientists and other important stakeholders have never even heard of it - whilst others support the idea in principle but then go on resist it (either actively or passively) in practice.

For example, the Nuffield Council Report was welcomed warmly - but what, more than more words, has actually been done about the recommendations they made? I suggest journal editors can begin by implementing the recommendation that all journals include a category in the methodology that describes and therefore highlights any 3Rs advances. This powerful idea has the potential to catalyze communication and retreival of 3Rs advances and move us all towards our universally acclaimed desirable goal.

Perhaps the editor of "Nature" would like to start the ball rolling?

The great majority of your respondents see the elimination of animal experiments as a desirable goal (irrespective of whether they think it is achievable or not). Like Prof. Blakemore, I do not know of a single scientist who would not prefer to use alternatives if they were available. This almost universal feeling in the scientific community is not reflected in the level of funding, development, communication or basic knowledge of alternative methodologies. That is to say, there is a lot of words and almost no action.

As an absolute minimum first step, the 3Rs concept should be converted into a working reality. Despite its oft-touted position as a cornerstone of today's science, in reality a majority of scientists and other important stakeholders have never even heard of it - whilst others support the idea in principle but then go on resist it (either actively or passively) in practice.

For example, the Nuffield Council Report was welcomed warmly - but what, more than more words, has actually been done about the recommendations they made? I suggest journal editors can begin by implementing the recommendation that all journals include a category in the methodology that describes and therefore highlights any 3Rs advances. This powerful idea has the potential to catalyze communication and retreival of 3Rs advances and move us all towards our universally acclaimed desirable goal. Perhaps the editor of "Nature" would like to start the ball rolling?

I’ve done research on moth larvae (caterpillars), electric rays, trout, zebrafish, rats and mice. I never enjoy euthanizing animals, even insects or fish, but I think there is an undeniable connection of the higher standard of living, improved health and increased life expectancy in the developed world to research performed on animals. I think the animal rights movement in the first few decades, overall, was beneficial for biomedical researcher community because it moved researchers toward more reflective thinking when planning animal research, and improved care of animals within research facilities. Lately, however, it seems the oversight has moved from productive to counterproductive, and there is a view by many activists that no animal research is justifiable. This has led to some oversight that merely becomes a paperwork obstacle to productive research and, to me, makes no sense. For example, when working with trout, I was experimenting to try and make a trout viral vaccine to save fish, especially hatchery fish that would be released into the wild. Gaining the ethical approval to do that work was as complicated and time consuming as gaining approval to work with mice models of human brain injury.

Lastly, while I did not read the full paper (merely the Nature News article) it should be emphasized that not all animal research, even modeling human disease, is done with the direct aim of preparing for human clinical trials. Thus, it can still be sensible to design animal experiments that wouldn’t likely be duplicated in hospitals (the brain injury study cited) if it leads to a greater understanding of the underlying molecular biology. In the end, that understanding might be applied to more rapidly find therapeutic approaches for humans, and actually reduce the total number of animals used. Like all research, doing animal experiments doesn’t guarantee a successful outcome for humans, but not doing them will almost certainly guarantee an unsuccessful outcome.

how can people be so careless about animals they are allowed to go around legally and kill animals such as deer moose and more

I found Nature’s articles on animal-based research very disingenuous. The scientific community has consistently refused to discuss the scientific merits of animal-based research in public forums. The journals, including the Nature journals have refused to allow the scientific merits of animal-based research to be questioned by knowledgeable scientists. Such discussion is needed in the journals. To hear proponents whine that more public discussion is needed when such discussion is rebuffed time after time severely calls into question their true agenda.

There is no doubt humans and animals have much in common, but when seeking predictive data the dissimilarities, even if slight, often outweigh the similarities. TGN1412, Elan's Alzheimer's vaccine AN-1792 (C. Marwick. J. Am. Med. Assoc.. 284, 1503-4; 2000), the myriad HIV vaccines that failed in humans, and hormone replacement therapy all tested well in nonhuman primates.

In a previous issue of Nature, there appeared an article about human accelerated region 1 (HAR1), part of an RNA gene (K. S. Pollard et al. Nature 434, 167-172; 2006). The slight differences discussed in HAR1 lead to profound differences between species. The differences in the regulation and expression of genes underlie why even very genetically similar organisms cannot be used as predictive models for one another.

No one can deny that studying animals in general and nonhuman primates in particular can lead to greater understanding of comparative anatomy and physiology and certainly of evolutionary biology. Nor can anyone deny that it will increase the amount of knowledge in the world, some of which may someday be relevant to humans. If researchers admitted that such reasons are why they are using animals, I doubt anyone would have any scientific objections. But selling research on animals to the public is not done on that basis; it is done by promising safer drugs and cures for disease. The implication is that if we can cure Alzheimer’s in a monkey, we can cure it in your father.

That is not just scientifically disingenuous but dangerous as the above examples prove.

Our position has been and is as follows:

Because of differences in gene regulation and gene networks vis-à-vis evolutionary and molecular biology even two nearly identical complex systems may respond differently to the same stimuli. Thus one complex system, such as a species, cannot reliably predict response for a different complex system. Current biomedical research is studying disease and drug response at the level where the differences between complex systems manifest, hence using animals as predictive models (causal analogical models) for human disease and drug testing is a scientifically invalid paradigm.

Until journals such as Nature allow both sides to present their scientific arguments in adequate detail to allow honest evaluation all talk of open discussion is merely diatribe.

is it possible to genetically engineer a mouse (or monkey) that doesn't feel pain or stress? eg by deleting the pain receptor genes etc? or is this pie in the sky?

Long ago when I was doing cancer research I killed my rats with an injection into their bellies. I held one in my left hand and began to push the needle in with my right. The little animal instinctively turned to bite me. Then he looked up and saw me, put his head down and died with dignity. I left research that week. I've never regretted the choice and have no doubts that a lot of good researchers are lost to science and a lot of potential cures go undiscovered because of animal testing.

I have always been appauled and surprised that non human animals were ever considered as a model. Appauled because they are sentient beings and it is unethical to torture non human animals just because we can. Might does not make right.

Surprised as to why so called "intelligent" human beings would use another species for human health outcomes and surprised because it has been often been proven time and time again that outcomes are inaccurate and at times deadly to human animals.

I continue to be distressed and surprised that non human animal alternatives are not being adopted or researched thoroughly. Vivisection is big business.

The accepted practice of performing unspeakable acts of torture on sentient beings for our own gains is not an indicator of an ethical, intelligent or peaceful society. Animal experimentation is abhorant and must end.

Future generations will most certainly look back upon this travesty of animal testing and experimentation and agree this was one of humanities darkest times.

I edit a peer-reviewed medical journal. Every time I read a study conducted on animals, qualifying statements are included to the effect of "we have no idea if these results would translate to humans." It seems so pointless to experiment on animals when the results aren't relative. As Dr. Neal Barnard has pointed out, there are models available that eliminate the need to experiment on any animals. If animal test results are so different from human results, it seems sick and cruel to inflict that kind of pain and fear for no reason. One study included hitting dogs in the chest to induce heart attack. We've all seen undercover video of the horrid conditions and treatment lab animals are subjected to. Animals are not ours to use for entertainment or experimentation.

Regarding the destructive testing of animals

I understand the need for using animals for medical research, I don't like, it disturbs and sickens me, but I understand the need for it. Medical research should be coordinated amongst different institutions to minimize duplication of research.

The use of animals, especially primates for non medical research, such as testing perfumes, household and industrial cleaners, child restraints etc. should be banned. This is not legitimate research, it is depraved and immoral behaviour.

I highly recommend the book "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" written by Dr. Ray Greek and his wife, as it includes information about the history of animal experimentation. I imagine that most of today's scientists know very little about just how and why animal experimentation began, and perhaps they also know little about why humans continue to experiment on animals in the 21st century. Reading this book requires excellent critical thinking skills, which unfortunately many refuse to utilize when responding to controversial issues like this one.

I'm not a scientist, but a journalist. I would highly recommend, however, that those advocating animal testing read a book by Dr Ray Greek, Sacred Cows & Golden Geese, along with two other volumes he's written specifically for the scientific community (the first was for everyone, including laypeople).

His extensive research has led to him collating numerous accounts from within the medical research industry itself of the pseudo-science of animal experimentation.

More info is available at www.curedisease.com

I have no links to Dr Greek, other than I once interviewed him for a magazine in the UK. His works speaks for itself.

It would be a pity if this BMJ report was used to undermine the value of animal research in developing new medical treatments. It's interesting that of the six interventions they examined the three for which the best quality animal data was available (tPA , Antenatal corticoids, and bisphosphonates) were in agreement with the human data, while a fourth (anti-fibrinolytic agents) showed good agreement between the results of animal experiments and human data, though the authors of the BMJ report considered the animal data insufficient to draw firm conclusion, the people developing the drug must have thought otherwise.

The design of pre-clinical models of stroke and head injuries has in recent years been the subject of much discussion in the research community, since it is widely acknowledged that the models currently/recently used do not accurately represent the type of injuries (the progression/complications) and the time delay between injury and intervention. I'm not convinved that the BMJ report adds much more to this, though the authors do acknowledge that the likely problem is the design of the experiments rather than any inherent species differences.

Overall I tend to agree that the analysis (and certainly the reporting) of this study has been over simplistic.

One thing that did strike me was that in many studies the number of animals used often appeared to be too low for reliable results, it would be interesting to know why. Is it due to practical considerations (cost, space, time etc.) or perhaps in part due to pressure from regulators to use fewer animals per experiment?

As a child I was allowed to have as many pets as I wanted, and spent most of my time trying to understand animals and hope that they understood me. I studied biology with heartfelt interest, and became interested in disease processes in humans.
In medical school, we had "dog lab", in which anesthesized dogs were given pressors and the like to monitor their responses, all of which was previously known and could be looked up in charts. Our dog, began to wake up during the procedure and I became very alarmed and told the lab tech, who dismissed it as no big deal. When it was clear the dog was going jump off the table, the tech cut open his chest. I burst into tears. My lab partner left the room and did not return. He was then brought before the dean and made to take the entire cardiovascular course over again. He still refused to repeat dog lab. It was only after he contacted animal rights organization who put pressure on the faculty that he was allowed to graduate.
As a resident I observed a researcher cut the tails off baby mice to bleed them. When they put the infants back with their mother, she visibly shook with horror and licked their little stumps, then nursed them. Many researchers pretend that, or have the anachronous philosophy that animals have no feelings.
In my career now, I have the unique opportunity to use the reverse of research to help dogs with lymphoma. We are involved techniques worked out in human stem cell transplants and are applying it to dogs. Although many of the practices for stem cell transplant were worked out in beagles, it has taken a great deal of experience in humans to truly understand transplant biology. Being able to apply it to some wonderful companion animals and curing them of their lymphoma seems a justifiable exercise but can never make up for the pain and suffering we have imposed on our fellow earthlings.

I have already been a member of the anonymous panel regarding use of animals.Being a research scholar & that too in 3rd world country like India,what I can say,life is expensive.Since we cannot think of applying our research findings directly on human,we are forced to take recourse to innocent creatures.Thinking about their sacrifice for our betterment is painful indeed.But at the same time,using any life as model is not good.Be it plant Or be it the simplest life form!As long as it is not endangering conservation of the creature concerned,We have to be cruel on timid creatures.As we are in human dominated society and we are trying to think of our betterment.as long as it is not possible to find a suitable model to mimic biological system,I myself can't think of any other option.In our country famous for mosquito menace,we are hardly finding strategy to deal with the exponential growth!If this mosquito can be used as an alternative model,it wont be harmful to that extent.But Alas!We are Chordates & above all primates!

Before, during and after reading Ray Greek's highly misleading books, which use selective quotation and omission to present a highly distorted view animal research I would advise anyone to check very carefully every "fact" he presents with an independent source or the original scientific literature.

On the particular issue of research on vaccines for HIV/AIDS I would suggest that readers take a look at the website of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition at http://www.avac.org/research.htm
and the international AIDS vaccine initiative at:
http://www.iavi.org/

For those with access to scientific liturature the following review provides a good overview of the difficulties of developing vaccines for HIV and the different strategies being adopted, Girard M. P. et al. Vaccine Vol. 24, pages 4052-4081 (2006) PubMed: 16530298, DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.02.031.

The SHIV/SIV monkey models of HIV infection are not perfect but they are currently vital to the development of effective vaccines for HIV, there is simply no viable alternative, though efforts are ongoing to develop rodent models of HIV.

I was confused by Paul Brown's post. He seemed to suggest that the websites of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the international AIDS vaccine initiative somehow refuted the arguments in Greek and Greek's three books.

But the two websites seem to be focused (almost?) entirely on clinical trials. There seem to be no pages or statements regarding monkeys models of HIV/AIDS.

They both note the universal failure of vaccines to date.

Mr. Brown's claim: "monkey models of HIV infection are not perfect but they are currently vital to the development of effective vaccines for HIV," seems to misuse the terms 'vital' and 'effective.'

Amazing, nay, shocking! the persistence of perfidious immorality and willful ostrich policy issuing from the world of "animal model researchers." Time and time again it is proven that computer models are more reliable than vivisection; nevertheless the scientific establishment stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this fact. Moreover, countless generations of students are led to believe that vivisection is absolutely crucial to understanding and scientific progress, and so are forced to repeat the same cruel vivisection experiments over and over--ad nauseum... And altough animal experimens may be the only option in third-world countries that have no access to hitech computer animation and modelling, the sheer level and intesity of vivisection in more advanced societies is simply inexusible. Let's not forget that there is a massive, thriving industry breeding and selling test animals, thus perpetuating their horrid suffering; as ever, b.s.walks when money talks!

Re Paul Browne's comments:

HIV drugs - in 1989 researchers at the pharmaceutical giant Merck, Sharpe and Dohme (MSD) were working on a promising protease drug. Development was going well until the scientists decided to test the new therapy on dogs and rats. They all died. According to MSD's former Vice-President of Worldwide Basic Research, Bennett M Shapiro, the company stopped development of its most promising protease inhibitor after it produced severe side effects in laboratory animals.
MSD presumed the drug would have the same lethal effect on humans, believing animal experiments provide an accurate model of how protease drugs affect people. The result? Research on a potentially life-saving treatment was halted in 1989, and clinical trials of a new protease drug, Crixivan, did not start until 1993. (source www.petertatchell.net)

A few months ago, I interviewed a geneticist who made what could be an important discover in HIV medication. He told me all his findings were done using human cells. The publicist later said that "unfortunately we'll have to test on chimpanzees" ie in order to be able to tick the bureaucratic boxes - the discovery itself owes NOTHING to animal experimentation.

As for the development of 'rodent HIV models' - oh great, now we can look forward to decades of wasted time and money curing HIV in mice...just like we have with cancer. As Dr Richard Klausner of the National Cancer Institute put it: "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn't work in humans."

Animal testing is BAD science. Those who do it know it. It's about money, profit, getting published and career progression. It's the 21st century - stop clinging on desperately to outdated, inefficient models of medical 'research' and start campaigning to use non-animal based models, which will be better for everyone, human and non-human alike.

Katerina, Your comment on HIV protease inhibitors proves my point. The toxic effects of the HIV protease inhibitor that Merck was working in 1989 on were not predicted by in-vitro tests, had this drug not been tested on animals it would have caused serious illness and perhaps even death to any humans it was given to. This would have set the development of protease inhibitors back by a lot more than 4 years. Luckily all was not lost, the crystal structure of HIV protease (and other proteases) was published in 1989 and Merck (and other companies) used this new information to design new HIV protease inhibitors. Four years later, after screening and refining over one hundred candidate HIV protease inhibitors, Merck identified one that combined good anti-viral activity against HIV in-vitro with acceptable oral bioavailability and toxicity in animal studies. This particular protease inhibitor, L-735,524, went into clinical trials in 1993 and was later approved under the name Indinavir (Cirixivan).

The paper reporting this is:
"L-735,524: the design of a potent and orally bioavailable HIV protease
inhibitor"
Dorsey B. D. et al. J. Med. Chem. Vol.37 pp.3443-3451 (1994).
PubMed: 7932573
Summary:
A series of HIV protease inhibitors possessing a hydroxylaminepentanamide
transition state isostere have been developed. Incorporation of a basic
amine into the backbone of the L-685,434 (2) series provided antiviral
potency combined with a highly improved pharmacokinetic profile in animal
models. Guided by molecular modeling and an X-ray crystal structure of the
inhibited enzyme complex, we were able to design L-735,524. This compound
is potent and competitively inhibits HIV-1 PR and HIV-2 PR with Ki values
of 0.52 and 3.3 nM, respectively. It also stops the spread of the
HIV-1IIIb-infected MT4 lymphoid cells at concentrations of 25-50 nM. To
date, numerous HIV-PR inhibitors have been reported, but few have been
studied in humans because they lack acceptable oral bioavailability.
L-735,524 is orally bioavailable in three animals models, using clinically
acceptable formulations, and is currently in phase II human clinical
trials.

No one is claiming that animal studies alone can provide all the answers, other techniques such as in-vitro work are also vital, but animal research has played and continues to play a key role in biomedical research.

Rick, I'm aware that the two websites deal mainly with human clinical trials but they do also mention the necessity for and limitations of animal (mostly monkey) research for HIV/AIDS.

That was why I added the information about the review by Girard et al. It goes into the difficulties associated with developing vaccines to HIV and the different approaches to overcoming them in great detail. I would really recommend that you get hold of a copy of it and read it, and I wish that one of the AIDS charities would produce something similar in less technical language for a more general audience. The nearest I could find is a rather old commentry on the HIV InSite website at: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-02-01-06#S8X.

Two major problem with SIV/HIV vaccine research is that the vaccination approaches that work best in SIV monkeys were deemed too dangerous to use in humans (because of the risk that a weakened virus would mutate and revert to a pathogenic form), and most SIV vaccines have been designed against particular strains of SIV and proved far less effective in protecting monkeys from the kind of mix of strains found in the environment. The rapidity with which HIV evolves is a constant problem for those designing vaccines against it. These problems are not due to the animal models being used but are caused by the nature of the virus itself.

As a consequence of this the primary purpose of most of the 30 or so human clinical trials of HIV vaccines to date was to determine if they were safe and if they evoked the desired response from the human immune system. There was never any real expectation that the trial vacines would offer significant protection against HIV, and only one candidate vaccine has undergone large scale trials for the ability to protect against HIV. The results of these trials provide important information to those designing new vaccines.

I'd just like to add another piece of information. In 2004 a therapeutic vaccination clinical trial had very promising results using a technique that had been developed on the SIV rhesus monkey model. Other trials are underway.

"Therapeutic dendritic-cell vaccine for chronic HIV-1 infection" Wei Lu, Luiz Claudio Arraes, Wylla Tatiana Ferreira & Jean-Marie Andrieu1, Nature Medicine Vol. 10, 1359 - 1365 (2004).
Summary:
"We present the results of a preliminary investigation of the efficacy of a therapeutic dendritic cell (DC)-based vaccine for HIV-1. We immunized 18 chronically HIV-1-infected and currently untreated individuals showing stable viral loads for at least 6 months with autologous monocyte-derived DCs loaded with autologous aldrithiol-2-inactivated HIV-1. Plasma viral load levels were decreased by 80% (median) over the first 112 d following immunization. Prolonged suppression of viral load of more than 90% was seen in 8 individuals for at least 1 year. The suppression of viral load was positively correlated with HIV-1-specifc interleukin-2 or interferon-bold gamma-expressing CD4+ T cells and with HIV-1 gag−specific perforin-expressing CD8+ effector cells, suggesting that a robust virus-specific CD4+ T-helper type 1 (TH1) response is required for inducing and maintaining virus-specific CD8+ effectors to contain HIV-1 in vivo. The results suggest that inactivated whole virus−pulsed DC vaccines could be a promising strategy for treating people with chronic HIV-1 infection."

I work for a law maker who as a microbiologist is in favour of animal testing which I oppose (because until a stiff regulatory system exists vast numbers of unnecessary tests will be repeated, inter alia). One position we have both been able to agree on is that optimal use must be made of data which can be gleaned from what experiments are necessarily carried out. For instance, degree of pain experienced by animal during test might easily be recorded by the tester alongside other EU regulatory data. In Ireland the self-regulatory environment among animal experimenters on the 59,000 animals tested on currently means the Department (Ministry) of Health which is nominally charged with providing the data to fulfil Ireland's EU derived reporting duties every 3 years does not appear to be interested yet in expanding the scope of its acivities to include, for example, promoting the 3 R's; recording of severity of animal procedures; promulgating new legislation which 'gold plates' current EU legislation regulating animal experimentation; and establishing and resourcing properly an independent inspectorate of animal experimentation establishments. It's good to see Nature providing this forum, and carrying out such a survey. I was appalled by your editorial the other month arising from the pathetic expose in that edition of the 'anti-science' US animal 'activists' emprisoned for ridiculously long sentences for causing criminal damage to buildings housing labs. In a week when the Lancet cncerned itself with the public health implications of the Iraq war, Nature was breathlessly railing against an invisible enemy of science. Anyway, glad you are trying to make up for it now. Keep up the good work.

I have read all of the posts uploaded till Dec 20. It seems to be 3 main tendencies:
. People which absolutely deny the usefullness of animal research and wish to stop it.
. People which cares about the sufering of animals but consider it a necesary cruelty.
. People which absolutely do not care about the animals and takes a practicall point of view on the research with animals centered on the "positive results" (like Mr. Browne).

After reading all of these comments my original opinion have become even more radical: animal research should be banned totally. For the "scientists" which are pro the animal research, their sufering or not is not worthy to mention. Im sure that in none of those papers with "positive" results in an "animal model" a word is commented about the life condition of their "model". These are just "technicalities" or any other usefull euphemism. I cant help but remember the words "last solution" (or was another expression?), another euphemism, used by the nazis.And is not case that Im jude, projude sionist, etc. Im just human and I care on animals, in fact is my hobby to save them whenever I can. Therefore I can't understand the pepople which dedicates themselves to kill them or to make them suffer any agony.

It is heartening to read so many letters from REAL animal lovers. Those bleeding hearts who say they don't like to "use" animals, but....; and those who have been brainwashed into believing there's no alternative, please ask the animals if they are hapy to be abused and tortured for the sake of an alien species (us). We are a self-centred, selfish and unattractive species who think we have some god-given right to inflict suffering on our fellow creatures who share this planet with us. If humans want cures for human diseases, then let them experiment on humans; at least the outcomes will be relevant.Gandhi said "The life of a lamb is no less precious than the life of a human." As lambs do us no harm, I think their lives are more precious than ours.

It's good to see Nature devoting space to an issue of such widespread public concern. Although many claims have been made either way, until recently large-scale scientific studies of the efficacy of animal experimentation in advancing human health have been rare. Since 2004, however, several such studies have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and presented at international scientific conferences, at which some have received awards. The results have been remarkably consistent: the stress laboratory animals experience is greater than commonly appreciated, and experiments on them contribute far less to the advancement of human medical progress than advocates frequently claim. These studies, as well as published reviews of non-animal experimental models, and relevant governmental reports, are available at www.AnimalExperimentFacts.info.

Personal experience,even a slight knowledge of history, tells us that any changes ever accomplished do not originate from an ethical perspective, they originate from a monetary/economic perspective-the most(probably the only) effective of which is "your own life or else".
Mankind has advanced so far that it gives birth to some feeling they have a understanding of,have conquered the problems themselves, nature, thw perplexities of the world. The ancient greeks in trying to orient themselves to define philosophically- the state and the individual-made a comparison that began with the individual-definitions of th3e important factors of life spirit-emotions-psyche-hungers-balances-perosnal ideas of justice in his life, learning-his happy healthy states and extrapolated this as a tool to call define a state as the individual-a colllection of individuals-as if one and the same-had to include extra factors involving arrising contradictions -demands for applied reasoning to construct balanced states. Modern science has drifted off, away from this initial step to compare with the self and has a very prominent mathematical objectivity with always, as always is, in any chosen path( action and reaction, interchange, reflection-vs a listlessness in the dark) direction, egnima, contrast and redirection. A mathematical obscession has taken hold over long intervals...a compulsive rationalization, systemization, not unlike that which, in one extreme a criminal might employ in his endeavors, or in the other extreme, a child reaching into the cookie jar-his diet suffers. Though a direct connecting thought is not obvious, our compulsions are so overwhelming, nature unconsciously appraised as nearly infinite, that we employ the same compulsive mentality, stealing cookies, to find ways to improve our diet-IT IS STILL THOUGH ONLY COOKIES and we are getting ill from them.
Eighteenth centuries phiosophers, unlike scientists, created a model of consciousness that has no other components than the individual, and said science was also the same-had hopes cscience would conquer a growing(medical pathology). Two centuries later we are doing the opposite-endulging ourself with cookies in a very confident way that is embedded with logical reasoning only. 'Whats the difference if I kill some animals for medical study, they're dying all the time anyways, being hunted, stepped on, dieing in fires, huricanes, eaten by other animals, hurt for sadistic pleasures, hunted. Better they sacrificed humanly in a laboratory to help cure disease.
When someone hunts and animal is not that self punishing -regardless of the persons capacity for cruelity-he becomes more cruel and that is self punishing-a reaction of his act. The intent of the mind, in its actions is always what is accomplished-is the only agent of self- change. If the animal bites back-that is an agent of change. I fone confines the animal so it cannot bite back, that act is an agent of change. We get sick and heated from a cookie diet-self rejecting.

Although current situation in this world does not allow to eliminate all animal experiments due to several reasons those already had been discussed many times, in my opinion there are several issues to be considered before ignoring animal activist’s protests. First, there is a huge number of labs all around the world where torture of animals and lack of responsibilities is routine. There is really a big question mark about psychological health of these people. Nobody cares while accepting tons of papers for publication how in reality these experiments had been done. And please, take into account that lab work is hardly controlled by anyone outside from the lab in many many institutions.
Second, we should think about the purpose of animal experiments. It is not a secret, that very often animals are used to increase the impact factor of publication. In my view, to some researchers very often it is a shield to cover poor biochemical data or other part of the publication. To sale it better… I talked to different PhD students in private and some of them just `save` their PhD with animal experiments even some of them did not have any permission to work with animals.
Personally, I refuse doing animal experiments in my life even it is going to cost me a lot. This is my principal position.
Third, I have impression that for the government and intuitions it is likely to ignore high costs for animal care and protection and keep on using them for research since at the end of the day it is a lot of money for pharmacology- lets be realistic and think that company thinks about promoting drug to the market and earn money rather then side effects and discrepancies between animal and human physiology.
In short, animals should be protected from inhumane researches by strict control and policies. The solid basis for necessity and design of such experiments should be clarified before any work had been performed. And animal works from countries where no proper rules and controls exist should not be accepted.

I have a Ph.D. in environmental engineering and went out of my way to avoid animal experimentation and promotion of the UC’s animal studies (especially primate studies) during graduate school. Human beings ARE animals, which we conveniently forget when we want to make decisions regarding who has full moral status and who doesn't, who should be used as a means to an end and who shouldn’t. Most people would agree that it is wrong to kill except in self-defense, but prolonging human lives through non-human animal research cannot be construed as self-defense because there is not an imminent threat involved, just a vague fear of pain and death. Perhaps this is the real issue that should be addressed, both scientifically and socially.

To Anastassiia:

"Although current situation in this world does not allow to eliminate all animal experiments due to several reasons those already had been discussed many times..."

I am not necessarily an animal rights activist("would not join any group that would have me as a member"-Woody Alen quote), have a PhD in Biochemistry and had in the past participated in research utilizing animals.
In group consenus though-especially in this case in this case what seems as the truthfull valid opinion, we must all be really creators of our own ideas and artists ourselves and have that responsiblitiy to answer ultimately to ourselves. Not even an original artists exact circumstances and intended message can dictate to a person whay he should see see in a creation-the things that attact attention do so because of their diverseness in general-maximum diversity is what makes nature work and imposing an authors own interpretaion to a work decreases diversity,it can only communicate something about the diversity and the author in the way the author perceives things. This society is getting literally flattened by the voice of critics, interpretation which are not intended as exact, scientific expert and authority that interpret science work. Confusions can and do exist i.e. between the studies of the philosophy of science and science itself. It is very dangerous when persons who are not advanced enough to reflect on the difference between the RECORD AND THE RECORD PLAYER-which modern science crosses back and forth-stumbles in frustration without a whole picture-...to pass notions onto people (sometimes not even assumed incomplete by respected voices)..things can add up logically but have extra dimensions just scribbled down as multiple dimensional space(acknowledged even by writers with as having no other answers yet available or the topic not addressed , but by others, yet, as sound in total ) with the perfect mathematics of a circle used to describe things. We could all wind up in a flatten state like an equation on a flat sheet of paper from the abuses we occur nature.

http://www.marvinekirsh.com
http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh

Since the beginning of history humans have used animals for food or work. Animal experimentation is just another use for them. I do believe that we, as a civilized society should do everything we can to reduce the suffering of animals, to respect and be thankful for their many gifts to us. It is my opinion that laboratories that are well maintained and monitored (as many are in the USA) provide better living conditions for the animals than most local petstores or even the typical suburban home. This has been my experience as I work with people who use mice in research and also have enjoyed keeping fancy mice as pets. So, if we are going to talk about animal welfare, I dont think the medical laboratory should be the target.

Nature declined to publish this letter but the point is so important that I will make it here.

Nature is to be congratulated for tackling the animal research controversy and devoting a special issue to it. The poll was especially revealing. As Claire Ainsworth pointed out, three quarters of all respondents said animal research is essential for progressing biomedical science. But if we look more closely, between 804 and 881 (probably nearer 881) of the 1201 respondents who think it essential actually conduct animal research themselves. Presumably, they would all say it is essential, so it is far more interesting to discount them and examine the views of biomedical scientists who do not conduct animal research.

Only between 320 and 397 further respondents (probably nearer 320), of the remaining 722-799 participants who do not conduct animal research think animal research essential.

In other words, a clear majority of those research scientists, professors, lecturers, post-docs, grad students and lab heads who do not personally conduct animal research believe it is not essential.

Kathy Archibald, Director, Europeans for Medical Progress

.....
NOTE FROM CLAIRE AINSWORTH:

Survey monkey lets you filter results to find out how people who responded to one question in a particular way answered other questions. So I applied filters to investigate this topic. The results are as follows:

Of the 1680 people who responded to this question:

Answering yes (881 respondents)

716 (85.9% ) rated it as 4 (essential)
105 (12.6%) as 3
10 (1.2%) as a2
3 (0.4%) as a1 (not at all essential)

Answering no, (799 respondents)

484 (62.9%) rated it as 4 (essential)
195 (25.3%) as 3
73 (9.5%) as 2
18 (2.3%) as 1 (not at all essential)

So the majority (approaching two thirds) of scientists who do not conduct animal research still think it is "essential" for progressing biomedical science, fewer than those who say they peform experiments on animals. 86% of these think such experiments are essential.

In addition to counting how many believe animal research to be absolutely essential it's also interesting to see how many rated it as "3" presumably "essential to most medical progress", of those scientists who stated that they do not do animal research about two thirds of those who did not pick option 4 picked option 3. All in all just over 88% of scientists who do not themselves carry out animal research rate it a essential to all or most medical progress.

That's a pretty telling result!

It's difficult to take pro-vivisectionists seriously when they claim that animal research is minimized as much as possible. If this were true, then negative results would be published and shared, in order to prevent endless duplications. A hell of a lot more people would be eating vegetables, exercising moderately, not smoking, and not exposing themselves to dioxins, VOCs, PCBs, PVC, benzene, atrazine. Government agencies would fund public health education and behavioral programs, not still more studies of the combined effects of crack, alcohol, and maternal deprivation on infant macaques.

I do not have the right to hurt another animal wilfully unless it is threatening my well-being. I resent extraordinarily having any of my money spent on animal experimentation, when it is demonstrably cruel, wasteful, unnecessary, and misleading. I have no need for new products or medical interventions. Anyone who wishes to rely on such research can jolly well finance it themselves!

This opinion poll reinforces my belief that independent thought is unlikely. The fact that, as Paul Browne points out, "just over 88% of scientists who do not themselves carry out animal research rate it a essential to all or most medical progress" is not cause for celebration.

What it probably shows is that most of these people
get their news from biased sources. This notion is supported by the fact that many pro-vivisection organizations point to websites maintained by pressure groups such as NABR, RDS, and AMP as reputable and reliable sources of information.

It should be kept in mind that in 2003, 80% of those who got their news from FOX News incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been found, that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, or that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq.

The majority view, especially when supporting the status quo, is no good indicator of prudence or rational thought.