In my recent editorial, I express the view that a commitment to “refinement, reduction and replacement” of animal research makes it impossible to explain to the public why the research is imperative. This view has been eloquently put before, notably by Stuart Derbyshire. Some colleagues in the London office of Nature have suggested that there is no conflict, UK researchers seek to reduce or replace animal research when they can, and they are still able to explain their work when they cannot find replacements.

I did note in passing that scientists hold just as wide a spectrum of ethical positions on the issue as the public at large. The Nuffield Foundation recognize and work with this diversity of ethical positions held in their excellent report last year. However, in response to the editorial, the silence has been deafening. What are your views?