It is always a disappointment when an attempt to find a replacement method for an animal test does not fulfil expectations. One such case has been highlighted in the newly published annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee 2006. An attempt to find an alternative to the mouse test for detecting botulism toxin in foodstuffs was unfortunately of severely limited use because of false positive results.

Without sufficient detail, it is not easy to tell if this is a minor or a major setback. But it does highlight a wider point about the nature of scientific endeavour. Very few methods of research are perfect.  The sweeping statement by antivivisectionists that ‘alternative’ methods of research are ‘superior’ to animal tests makes no scientific sense. The best test or research method can only be identified on a case-by-case basis.

Another example of a problematic non-animal method of research is the Ames test - used to determine whether chemicals cause mutations in the DNA of cells. This and other in vitro tests are now widely used as pre-screens to partially replace rodent testing for cancer-causing compounds. Unfortunately, the Ames tests is also riddled with false positives. As a result, it tends to be used as way of understanding aspects of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity rather than as replacements for the animal assays themselves.

Scientific research is rarely as straightforward as the antivivisectionists like to make out.