FOR ANIMAL TESTING We are an Oxford-based group campaigning in favour of continued animal testing and in support of scientific research.

We aim to dispel the irrational myths promoted by anti-vivisectionists and to encourage people to stand up for science and human progress Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Animal research has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities. The public debate on animal research sometimes gets so heated that the facts can be overlooked. How many animals are used in research every year? Do people know that most of them are mice or rats? Why are animals genetically modified? How is animal research regulated? How are the animals cared for? What actually happens to research animals? How does the use of animals in research and testing compare with other uses of animals by society? Animals are essential in scientific research, medicines development and safety testing. They are necessary to understand the body in health and disease, and to develop new and improved medical treatments. But their use is not undertaken lightly. Both the potential scientific and medical benefits of the research, and the possible suffering of the animals used, are weighed up carefully before any animal research project can proceed. No-one wants to use animals in research, and no one would use them unnecessarily. Animal research is considered a last resort, to be used only when there is no alternative method. In the UK, strict regulations and a licensing system mean that animals must be looked after properly and may not be used if there is any other way of doing a piece of research. Non-animal methods are used for the majority of biomedical research. So animal studies are used alongside these other types of research. Such alternative' methods include the study of cells and tissues grown in the laboratory, computermodelled systems, and human patients, volunteers or populations.

AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING Practical argument

Animal testing can be misleading. An animal's response to a drug can be different to a human's . Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models. The stress that animals endure in labs can affect experiments, making the results meaningless. Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than

medicines or surgery. Moral argument

Animals have as much right to life as human beings. Strict controls have not prevented researchers from abusing animals. Deaths through research are absolutely unnecessary and are morally no different from murder. When locked up they suffer tremendous stress. Can we know they don't feel pain?

AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING Practical argument

Animal testing can be misleading. An animal's response to a drug can be different to a human's . Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models. The stress that animals endure in labs can affect experiments, making the results meaningless. Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than

medicines or surgery. Moral argument

Animals have as much right to life as human beings. Strict controls have not prevented researchers from abusing animals.

Deaths through research are absolutely unnecessary and are morally no different from murder. When locked up they suffer tremendous stress. Can we know they don't feel pain?