Previous vivisection article                                                                            home

The Times    (UK)  December 17, 2002

Use of animals in medical research (two letters, one pro, one con)

From Mr Thomas Bromley
Sir, While every effort to find alternatives to animals in medical research should be encouraged (letters, November 28, December 5 and 10) I believe that the campaigns of anti-vivisection groups are often unrealistic.

The scientific community wouldn't use animals if it wasn't necessary.

Our main concern should be for our fellow human beings and understanding complex brain disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's. The use of primates does require extra justification but they have already helped us to improve human health, which should be our priority.

Yours sincerely,
THOMAS BROMLEY
(Executive Secretary),
Seriously Ill for Medical Research,
PO Box 504,
Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU6 2LU.

From Dr Ray Greek
Sir, As a physician, I must disagree with Dr Mark Matfield (letter, December 5). Both medical advances cited by him are, in my view, due to non-animal research methods. The polio vaccine was made possible by Dr John F. Enders inventing a technique to grow the polio virus in culture, and it is well known that results from monkey experimentation misled researchers, thus delaying this important advance for more than 40 years. The brain "pacemaker" for Parkinson's is due to advances in technology.

Just because animals are used in drug development, which for safety purposes is a
legal rather than scientific requirement, doesn't mean that they are essential to the
advance of modern-day medicine.

Yours faithfully,
RAY GREEK
(Medical Director),
Europeans For Medical Advancement,
PO Box 38604, London W13 0YR.
efma@curedisease.net
December 11.
---------------------

Correspondence:
letters@thetimes.co.uk

Previous anti-vivisection article