If testing in animals is accepted as such a 'noble' pursuit, why has one of Britain's 'most vocal champions' of animal-testing' Prof Blakemore been passed over for a Knighthood several times over?

Robert Potter-Manning, London, UK

Great points. I can't seem to understand people who are so hot on animal welfare, while continuing to eat flesh. In a perfect world, animal testing wouldn't exist, but giving up eating meat will not only be better for the animals, but our own health and for the earth.

NIma Suchak, Leicester,

I pretty much agree with Blakemore; research is a fundamental part of progress and MUCH more justified than factory farms, hunting , using animals in sport etc.

A.K., Paphos,

I agree with Colin Blakemore here. Why are the anti vivisectionists trying to close down medical research, when they could save more animal lives by campaigning against the meat industry?

I think it's unethical to stop medical research. Many disabled and unwell people rely on future advances.

Kevin Elliott, Oxford, UK

I tried for a year not eating anything that has a face!But I felt so wobbly that I compromised and now eat chicken and some fish.(nuts,etc.did not suit.)Feel fine now.(Am wary of extremes in anything!)As I lost a young relative to cancer recently,I have to support research,but would prefer it not to be on mammals.However,living in the "real world" I realise this isn't always possible.Thus I tend to agree with the good professor.

HD, WsM,

I don't give a damn if animal testing were to save the entire human race (which obviously doesn't deserve it), it's ETHICALLY wrong and immoral.

But hey, global warming may make all this moot. Scientist James Lovelock (The Gaia Theory) has written that global warming is irreversible, and that we'll have 6 billion dead people on our hands by the end of this century.

Cheers,
Eric Mills
USA

eric mills, oakland, california, USA