Amen to that Toni.

Here's my favourite traditional Christmas Carol https://youtu.be/Jlf---13Q0g

And who can forget Bad Santa's Christmas Spirit
(a mild scene - but still worth a language warning) https://youtu.be/cP96t4BhSdc

Have Yourself a Very Merry Christmas

Interesting timing for this article, as I'm currently editing a book on the development of a "body-on-a-chip" for the drug development and therapy evaluation and have been reading contributions from the leading researchers in the world about the development of alternatives to animal research. An overview of some of the work our lab does in this area is here for those that are interested.
http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/WFIRM/Projects/Body-on-a-Chip.htm

However, I am always concerned when I see articles like this, that rightly point out the major limitations to animal studies, but neglect to discuss the alternatives, which of course have their own disadvantages, and many of which are still in development and far from the stage where they can reliably replace animal studies. Rather the author seems to argue a point from ignorance, suggesting researchers are perhaps too lazy or negligent to move away from animal experiments. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Believe me, if there are suitable alternatives currently available to us, researchers would be all over them! In order to perform an animal study, we need to complete mountains of paperwork, usually at both the institution and federal level, pay extortionate costs for animal drugs, vet care housing etc. which eats up our grant money, and (as the author points out) there is still no guarantee this will represent the results after clinical translation. We are also legally bound to demonstrate efforts to address the "three Rs" of medical research. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/three-rs/

We are only allowed to progress with animal research if we show that suitable alternatives currently don't exist. Eventually we may get to the stage where certain animal experiments, such as drug toxicity testing, can be moved to human cell, or in silco-based systems. But how would we evaluate therapies, such as tissue engineering and organ transplantation, etc. on a computer or culture system? So before you start pushing for us to abandon animal experiments, at least make sure we have alternatives that are equal or superior, to avoid harming the patients we are working hard to treat.

Continued next post

If you are willing to accept greater numbers of human deaths and side-effects in clinical trials in order to reduce animal use, then you should say this, as this will be the result of your approach.

I noticed on your website that you raise money via donations. Rather than just trying to shut down research using one-sided statistics and horror stories about 1950s research, perhaps you could spend some of your money received from donations to actually fund some of this research? Lets make a better system before you tear down the best one we currently have.

To add something to Stezza’s comment, researchers who conduct medical research using animals would love to have alternatives to use. Certainly where alternatives are available, they are used. This is because they are cheaper and more reliable. There is a lot of cost and effort involved in conducting research on animals. However, it is not as simple as growing cells in a dish.

Somewhat ironically, there is a regulatory push from some areas (notably the EU) to have even more animal testing and frequently this testing is of dubious scientific value. Such as this http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130731

The publication mentioned in the article seems to miss these nuances.

At the heart of the problems as with all things science is lack of accountability of scientists in all fields. Yet they rule the planet. Trillions of dollars spent on cancer cures and trillions of animals sacrificed yet clinical research in the US came to the conclusion the largest percentage of cancers are caused by lifestyle choices etc. And now the govmt prefers to increase the price f healthy food choices rather than decrease the amount spent on vaccines. Every medicine package has a warning that we all react differently and all experience different side effects. Mmm Lets focus on hygeine and lifestyle and thus benefit the economy as well as the planet.

"And now the govmt prefers to increase the price f healthy food choices rather than decrease the amount spent on vaccines."

In fact vaccines are one of the most cost-effective medical interventions available. They have been instrumental in the elimination of smallpox, important in the pending elimination of polio and if not for a group of anti-vaccine ignoramuses, measles might be on the verge or eradication. Also, most vaccines are not tested on animals - for the simple reason that many vaccine-preventable diseases don't occur in laboratory animals.