DEAR EDITOR, - Many of your readers will have tuned into Channel 4's programme Animals on Thursday, January 12th, hoping to see a well-informed sensible drama-documentary focusing on the debates surrounding vivisection.

How disappointed they will have been therefore, to see that after a promising start featuring coverage from an undercover investigation carried out by the BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection), the programme quickly descended into an unoriginal portrayal of the small minority of animal rights 'activists' who engage in violent and unlawful activity pitted against scientists. In reality, the debate lies within the scientific community itself.

Increasingly, questions have arisen as to whether or not it is ethical to test on animals, and whether it actually works, which is why, earlier this year, hundreds of scientists from all over the world attended the World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in Life Sciences in Berlin.

These were experts at the cutting edge of science, sharing information and discussing the future of alternatives to animal testing.

Very many of them would have been acutely aware that the replacement of animal tests is not just desirable but essential for human health, as well as more humane.

As a result of this new drive and debate within the scientific community, many more techniques are being developed which don't involve the use of animals.

In September for example, the Financial Times covered 'human micro-dosing', a method that can test 'whole body' effects of drugs in humans, by-passing the use of animals. And in the same month, at the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Manchester, the microfluidic circuit was unveiled, - a 'chip' containing areas of cells representing different parts of the human body, linked by tiny channels that circulate nutrients between them.

It is designed to assess the effects of a potential new drug compound in humans, and gives human-specific data, in contrast to misleading and dangerous animal data that cannot be extrapolated to humans.

The media has a role to play and should face up to their responsibilities.

By raising a hugely emotive issue and then disproportionately focusing on the intimidatory methods of the few, rather than on the real issues, or the huge amount of non-violent campaigning work that goes on, they fail to illustrate the many options available to anyone opposed to what they see.

The media therefore unwittingly encourages violence - something the BUAV is unequivoc ally opposed to.

Yours faithfully Adolfo Sansolini Chief Executive BUAV