Sir

Your Editorial “Still not deterred” (Nature 437, 1–2; 200510.1038/437001b) calls on universities to support animal research. We are all horrified at the techniques of the terrorists, but the much wider public is increasingly sceptical about animal research. These are legitimate concerns that should not be dismissed because of a few fringe characters. As scientists, we depend on public funds, so we are under an obligation to explain why animal research is morally acceptable.

We argue that animal research can yield information not available through other experimental techniques. Historically, we have experimented on slaves and prisoners. Given that we can no longer justify the suffering of human research subjects, even if it could save lives, how can we accept the suffering of animal research subjects? We must recognize that the decision to experiment with animals is a moral decision, not a scientific one. Our society does not believe that the end justifies the means. Do we disagree?

Our contention that humans are unique among the animals is a religious argument. As an evolutionist, I find it absurd to think that human culture and society developed without precedents among animals. We in fact now have evidence for animal cultures, as reported in the pages of this journal.

Perhaps we need to come up with better arguments — or better experiments that don't offend the public.