A declaration today by more than 700 scientists who support animal experimentation appears to be taking on animal rights extremists, writes David Fickling.
But a closer look at the statement - and a similar declaration made exactly 15 years ago - makes it seem as though pro-experimentation body the Research Defence Society is running scared of its opponents.
The 1990 declaration was a forthright document which insisted that "continued research involving animals is essential" and "much basic research … still requires animal experimentation".
It concluded: "Violent attacks on people and property, hostile campaigns against individual scientists, and the use of distorted, inaccurate or misleading evidence should be publicly condemned."
Today's version comes after several years of violent attacks and hostile campaigns that would have made the 1990 signatories blench, but the language bends over backwards to accommodate the views of animal rights activists.
It declares that "animal welfare is of paramount importance" – surely a mistake, since animal experimentation depends on the principle that it is human welfare that is paramount.
It also calls on laboratories to promote a "culture of care", asking them to release more "clear information" about their activities and superfluously demanding that experiments are subject to ethical review – a condition which has been mandated by law since 1986.
Incredibly, given yesterday's decision by Darley Oaks farm to cease breeding guinea pigs for experimentation following a six-year campaign of intimidation, the statement does not even include any mention of animal rights extremism.
This smacks of an organisation that fears it is losing the argument, or at the very least the struggle for public opinion.
But it probably doesn't need to be so jittery. The Royal Society last year concluded that almost every medical achievement of the 20th century depended on the use of animals, and the public appears to agree.
According to two Mori polls, carried out in 1999 and 2002, well over four-fifths of the public support animal research, on the conditions that it is for essential for tackling life-threatening diseases and harm is minimised.
Even a less conditional Guardian poll in 2001 found a clear majority in support of testing.
So why doesn't the RDS make a stronger case for what it believes in?
