Antivivisection groups must be smarting from the relative lack of attention from the press. The weekend of May 13/14 was a great opportunity for them to make a good case to counter the huge press and public support for responsible animal research and testing. But we heard almost nothing, apart from the predictable BBC ‘we have to be balanced - even if it means wheeling out the flat-earthers’ approach. The RSPCA approach of engagement and constructive challenge obviously was not divisive enough for the BBC.

The BBC had a tough choice finding someone for this ‘balance’; EMP is discredited, NAVS is lost in the past, and PETA is just too dangerous to talk to (watch them endorsing unlawful shareholder targeting on the video link on this BBC page)

So the BBC was left with BUAV which trots out isolated anecdotes of animal based science being wrong and saying it is old fashioned and implying it can be completely replaced. I actually do not know why the BUAV does this, because, through its association with the Dr Hadwen Trust, it appears to endorse the scientific method and the role of animal research (Have a look at the lab room interviews at their ‘Science Room’).

So why does BUAV say the exception proves the rule?  This Question and Answer from a US pundit says it all;

Q. I’ve heard the following expression from people all over the country and on television. It makes absolutely no sense:
“That’s the exception that proves the rule.”
Is this a bastardization of some other phrase? If not, what does it mean?
A. Don’t you get it? The whole point of this saying is that it doesn’t make sense. It’s what you say to confound your enemies when your argument has been shot out from under you by some pesky counterexample. From the point of view of advancing the debate it’s about one jump ahead of “yo mama,” but it beats standing there with your mouth open.