Given recent literature questioning the reliability of primate studies to translate to human benefits their use in safety testing and human disorder research has to be questioned.

Gene modification has the scientific potential to treat many catastrophic human diseases and we should not be afraid to develop it simply because of ethical concerns.

ATLA has published new and effective research into alternatives to animal testing for more than 30 years. The Lush Prize rewards ground breaking work by those investigating and promoting non-animal testing methods. ATLA is pleased to be able to help disseminate news of the progress being made.

High priority needs to be given to replacement of animal experiments with scientifically valid alternatives

A logical focus of attention is on ensuring that new non-animal methods are produced that can progressively eliminate the need for animal procedures.

PiLAS – Perspectives in Laboratory Animal Science – is a place for bioscientists to discuss aspects of lab animal use.

“It is heartening that the Minister stressed the Government’s determination to apply strict controls on any tests that will still be permitted under the new rules.”

This proposal is bad science and will lead to misuse of potentially hundreds of animals in the research. Let’s move forward with good science that uses human non-animal models to help understand and treat human diseases.

The way in which reduction in laboratory animal use can most effectively be achieved is by rigorous experimental design and appropriate statistical analysis of any results.

Increasing use of non-human primates in safety testing of drug candidates is ethically undesirable.

“Any level of suffering is a concern, but we are particularly concerned about those animals who suffer the most.”

If we are to find useful, safe drugs in the future it is vital that all interested parties work together to find valid, non-animal methods that will identify them.

Animals should be treated with respect, befitting their status as sentient beings, rather than as mere tools for data collection.

“This isn’t a tug-of-war between left and right, with only the strained rope and a referee in the middle. The middle is, or ought to be, hospitable ground to all who wish to help medical science move toward what the relevant EU Directive calls its “final goal”, i.e. animal-free medical research.”

There are ways in which ivory could be used in scientific and medical research. So is it right that seized tusks should be destroyed, or should they be recycled in the pursuit of science?

If a substance is to be used for cosmetic purposes, it should be subject to the same restrictions that other cosmetics are

FRAME believes that more emphasis should be placed on searching for valid, non-animal methods, rather than giving priority to creating a great many new genetically modified animal models.