A moderate case for animal rights fanatics

My reaction last week, I suppose, will not be dissimilar from those of the majority of my readers. I growled. From my radio came a report about problems that British researchers were encountering with supplies of mice for medical experiments. Apparently anti-vivisectionists have been targeting the transport companies that bring supplies of mice from the Continent; and, having frightened the airlines off, were turning their attention to ferry companies, one of which had just decided to stop accepting lorries loaded with this living freight.

I growled because I don’t like bullying and intimidation and don’t approve of ‘direct action’, and because I’m sure that some animal experimentation is necessary if we are to develop drugs, procedures and products that are safe for human use. My mind is made up on this. Scientists have persuaded me. I’ve heard, read and now believe that circumstances arise where there is no inanimate substitute for this form of testing.

I nodded in sympathy on reading the next morning a leading article in my own paper, the Times, from whose sub-heading — ‘Crucial medical research is at risk owing to ill-informed criticism of scientists’ — you can get the drift. I got the drift. Again, I agreed. My paper, and others too, gave extensive coverage to the issue, the predominating tone being that single-issue fanatics in a minority cause must not be allowed to block work that is in the interests of all of us. I agree with that, too — without hesitation.

So I surprised myself by my reaction to a reader’s letter to the paper on the following morning. ‘Anyone reading your coverage of the ban by many ferry operators and airlines on the transport of animals for experiments would think that there is only one position that right-thinking people can take on this issue.’