I think it is great that you are making a rally-call to support animal testing. It means that the “extremists” are finally causing some concern. However, beyond mere labels, and beyond the extremism and propaganda on both sides, there is room for rational discussion. Defending all animal research as “justified” is just as absurd as condemning all research as “pointless.” Unfortunately, the attitude that many animal researchers project is an absolute certainty in the rectitude of their positions. That’s not terribly dissimilar to the attitude of some activists. I hope you will concede that absolute certainty is best left to religion, not science, and therefore, science should embrace discussion and challenge as an inherent part of the process of expanding human knowledge.

Not all research is valid. Just so, few people discuss the waste of lives, rather than the loss of profits when studies are shown either invalid or inapplicable. If one doesn’t assume that animals are here to use or waste as we please, if one assumes that life itself has some value, then science must balance the impact and demand that researchers be accountable for the loss of lives they cause. Most researchers, IMHO, dislike having to justify their research on any level, much less a slippery one that involves morals.

Might I suggest a compromise for both sides? Perhaps a bit more transparency in the manner in which animals are used, kept, and treated; perhaps a willingness to allow animal activists the ability to verify treatment conditions; perhaps a willingness to admit when animal research is inappropriate, redundant, or unnecessary? And, in return, I would suggest that the animal “activists” keep an open mind regarding the positive research that’s been done and has saved lives in many instances, and a willingness to accept that some research may be necessary for the benefit of all lives.

“Have fun storming the castle”

Phil