The use of animals for testing is wrong. It inflicts pain and stress that the animals have done nothing to deserve. However, it is a necessary evil. Despite the fact stem cell research development is helping to cut the amount of animal testing, there is no viable alternative to using animals to develop new, life saving drugs. If they felt so strongly, perhaps the thing to do would be for the protesters to put themselves up as an alternative to the animals they wish to save. Name and address withheld

It is an outrage that any business should be forced to close due to violent and physical harassment. The creatures who perform such actions value the lives of their fellow animals more than that of a human. Am I the only person who thinks it madness for an animal's suffering to take precedence over a human? The most vocal opponents of vivisection make statements which show themselves to be partially informed on the subject; many of the anti-vivisectionist opinions on this site indicate a fundamental lack of awareness of the reasons as to why such experiments take place. James Matheson, Edinburgh

I think all medicines should be labelled tested on animals and then animal rights activists have the choice of living in pain and discomfort or taking the drug. I'm sure some would say they wouldn't take it but what about their children, would they rather see them suffer? How about vaccines, do they refuse them? Would they like to see their child turning black in front of their eyes from meningitis and then dying knowing that they killed them by their beliefs? And we don't have a vaccine for meningitis B yet, should these experiments stop? Nobody wants unnecessary experiments to be carried out and wherever possible alternatives are used but at the moment a living creature is the only way in some cases to test possible new drugs. I am also sorry this farm shut down for other guinea pigs who will probably now come from abroad where the treatment of them is much less regulated than here. Until we live in a disease free world there is always going to be a need for new medicines and that requires animal testing. Ellie Smith, Hereford

The Animal Rights terrorists should be prosecuted as members of organized crime. The people who state that experiments on animals are unnecessary are deluding themselves, and when a medical crisis happens, they invariably show their hypocrisy by relying on modern medicine: even the late Linda McCartney had to resort to medications that were tested first on animals. It's a shame that some UK readers feel so intimidated that they have to withhold their name and address. I can assure the animal rights loonies that I would not stand for intimidation. David Chorley, Broken Arrow, USA

I am delighted that the farm is closing. I agree with the goals of the individuals who have been instrumental in forcing the family to do this, but I don't necessarily agree with the ways in which this has been achieved nor condone what they have done. However, animal experimentation is morally and ethically wrong. There can be no justification whatsoever for using animals for drug and cosmetic testing. Testing on animals doesn't always work - Thalidomide was tested on animals and there were no problems - look at the effect it had on children who were born to pregnant woman who had taken the drug. Elaine Jones, London

I think the animals rights activists may have won this battle but have now lost the war. Most people of goodwill in this country now realise that the activists are evil. I was shocked to see one of their spokeswomen on the TV news the other night spouting the blatant lies that "these guinea pigs are kept in inhumane conditions and then tortured to death" She repeated this twice, without any comment from the interviewer. Most people now, i suspect, will regard the activists also as liars. Tim Oakley, Manchester

Labours pre-election promise was to have a judicial enquiry into animal research, but has failed to deliver. The Home Office admit that animal experiments have never been evaluated as relevant to human health and they have no intention of doing so. Why is the government so reluctant to debate this controversial issue? Every medical advance is not the result of animal experiments, but from human experience, hence the numerous tragedies and drugs withdrawn. The huge increase in consumption of (animal tested) drugs and the shocking rise in diseases tells us something is seriously wrong with current methods of research. Gemma Nicholls, Leeds

I do not condone the tactics of extremists, but do not support animal experiments. The bulk of research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry which must produce a continual flow of new drugs in order to survive, and revenue from drugs is vital to the economy. Animals are merely a "tool" to develop drugs under the pretext of finding cures, that strangely never materialise, ensuring a constant demand for "improved" drugs. Drugs may alleviate symptoms, but do not cure! Curing diseases would be commercial suicide to an industry that thrives on sickness. Official scientific sources admit that the majority of drugs do not work in most people and are a major cause of death. They do however generate billions in profit and revenue. Hospitals, universities, scientists, the media, and governments promote animal research due to dependance upon funding/revenue from drug companies. Years of research on billions of animals has not produced a single cure, sickness and disease is at record levels and drug related diseases have reached epidemic proportion. The facts speak for themselves. Marlene Thompson, Hucknall

What the Government is failing to protect us from is the bad medical research that is killing people every day. Vioxx appeared to be safe in animal trials but has killed about 60 000 people. Hormone Replacement Treatment increases women's risk of heart disease, breast cancer and stroke. Monkeys predicted the opposite The list goes on and on. The vivisection fraternity has had it too good, for too long. It has been avoiding a real, scientific debate on animal experimentation for decades, hiding behind the "your-child-or-the-rat" argument and, in recent years, behind animal rights violence. All this with help from the media, and this includes The Times too, which refuses to offer a platform to those scientists who question and oppose this practice. What is the Government going to do about this?? Absolutely nothing - as it is so wedded to the industry. Let us not forget the huge sum of £14m donated to it by David Sainsbury - the Science Minister - who is such a vocal proponent of animal experimentation. Beata Gajek, London

I am glad this place has now closed. I hope the remaining guinea-pigs will be put in caring homes. Animal experiments may be legal but legality is no guarantee of morality. Julia Holliday, Lincolnshire

Animal rights activists always describe themselves as "compassionate" and "peaceful", and their cause as the direct descendant of the campaigns of the suffragettes and Gandhi. Why then is it invariably advanced by violence, intimidation and destruction? Indeed these methods are chosen in preference to peaceful, dignified campaigning. They argue that reasoned debate has not succeeded and if violence gets them what they want, then violence is justified. Their choice of tactics says more about them than any of their self-glorifying placards - they are everything they claim their victims to be - cruel, barbarous, amoral, selfish, greedy and vicious. Any cause espoused by such people is obviously false. Name and address withheld

The tactics used to terrorise the owners of Darley Oaks Farm are simply evil and totally unjustified. Clearly, the police have been unable to deal with the perpetrators effectively or put a stop to their actions. The animal rights protesters will no doubt be very happy with their victory in this case and expand their terror tactics. The Government and police need to get together now and put in place some effective legislation, funding and strategies to identify these people and bring them to justice. Joe Bunting, Birmingham