THE rather dismissive and arrogant comment by Irene Fogarty (Letters, May 29), that knowledge gained through animal research "could often have been acquired by other means" should not go unchallenged.

Animal research has been indispensable in the development of many major medical advances.

Perhaps Mrs Fogarty can explain precisely how important advances - such as insulin for diabetes, treatments for leukaemia, anaesthetics and blood transfusions - could have come about without the involvement of animal research?

Those involved in animal research care just as much about animals as anyone else.

For this reason, and because there are very strict controls, animals are only used in research when absolutely necessary.

The so-called alternatives to animals - tissue culture, computer modelling etc - are actually used much more than animal studies, but alongside them, not instead of them.

To begin to see the whole picture we need to look at the complex interactions that take place in whole living animals.

It would be impossible, for instance, to measure blood pressure in a test tube, or develop new intensive care techniques using a computer.

Much as we would all like to see an end to the use of animals in research, with present day technology, and even in the foreseeable future, this is simply not possible.

BARBARA DAVIES, Deputy Director, Research Defence Society.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.