Our doctors help us analyse criticism by the DHT, following our opposition to their funding of animal modelers

Our doctors help us analyse criticism from the DHT, following our opposition to their funding of animal modelers

The statement from the Dr Hadwen Trust is a classic case of fallacious reasoning and obfuscation. For example, DHT states:

The reason the DHT’s approach is so impactful

This assume their approach is impactful. There is no objective evidence to support this. This is classic for organizations and individuals that do not have facts on their side. Simply make a claim and belittle those that disagree by assuming their claim has already been accepted by society and is consistent with known facts. When pressed such organization will make more such claims, thus claiming to have proven previous claims or set forth misleading facts that seem to support their unsubstantiated claims. Disproving their nonsense can go on forever as there is no amount of proof that organizations such as DHT will acknowledge as discrediting them. This is fallacious reasoning is called argumentum ad nauseam.

DHT continues:
is that we take the active decision, when the opportunity arises, to initiate ‘direct’ replacement activities. That is to help scientists alleviate their reliance on animal-models (which often have serious flaws) by directly funding replacement research in their lab.

This statement makes DHT appear to be “active”. As our previous post noted “direct replacement activities are not needed when the modality or procedure or approach is nonsense”. The original, in this case animal modelling, that claims to offer predictive value for humans needs to be abandoned and viable research methods either employed or developed. If animal modeling has serious flaws why are scientists relying on it in the first place? (They get paid.)

One of the global problems that still exists when it comes to implementing non-animal approaches is awareness of technological advancements. Although in the UK there is an obligation to use ‘alternatives’ when they exist, here at the DHT we are still of the opinion that the diverse toolbox of alternatives available right now is enormously under-utilised. On top of this the ‘toolbox’ is far from complete, and there is still an immense amount of work required to address the gaps.

The entire research community is well aware of what technologies are out there. Animal modeling does not persist because of the ignorance or stupidity of the animal modelers. It persists because so many people make money from it. It is an institution in its own right. DHT is correct when they say there are no alternatives for some experiments but this is because those experiments offer nothing of predictive value to humans and/or because no technology exists that allows us to study a monkey’s brain one neuron at a time. We do not need to study a monkey’s brain one neuron at a time in order to find cures for multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s we need to study human brains. And we need to study those human brain in any way we can. Once again DHT is obfuscating.

When deciding on the research to fund, the DHT focus entirely on the ‘what’ not the ‘who’. What do we mean by that? It is the research activity that is of utmost importance not the scientist doing the work, or their past history i.e. developing the non-animal approach so that animals are no longer used, not the scientist doing the work.

This is a very naïve and immature view of the world. As DHT is not composed of people who are naïve, so we can only assume they think they the rest of us are naïve and immature enough to believe this nonsense. Scientists use grants to fund their labs not just to fund specific experiments. Any money sent to a scientist that uses animal will support all the activities of the scientist. The statement above is like saying we fund pedophiles that are looking for a cure to pedophilia because we fund “the what not the who.”

Focussing on an individual and their past history is without merit and enormously unhelpful.

Only if you believe that pedophiles and animal modelers really, really want to stop.


If the DHT were to take this approach it is conceivable that the scope, breadth and even quality of the research we fund may be compromised.

The research DHT funds is premised on nonsense. If any thing good has come from this it is mere luck not because it was good science-based funding.


We want to fund the best, most impactful, research that will be published in the most well respected journals across the world. We want everyone to be aware of the non-animal approaches that are available and still being developed. Here at the DHT we are enormously proud of this approach.

Exactly! People who support DHT want the end of animal modeling and the beginning of research that will result in cures. DHT claims to also wants this. Therefore, DHT funds research that gets published, but that is based on proven nonsense. Publication alone is not science nor is it good for humans or animals.

Organisations choosing to attack the DHT for our meaningful, measurable, pragmatic and pro-solution approach

This is again begging the question. DHT does not want a long discussion based on facts about what their funding has accomplished. They want to make claims and obfuscate when challenged.

for tackling the animal use issues head on should consider dedicating their resources to a more useful activity.

DHT is not for tackling animal use issues head on than society in general is holding its elected officials responsible for their actions. If DHT wants to explain their philosophy they can start by explaining why animal modeling is predictive for human response to drugs and disease. ALL of their actions are based the validity of this premise.

Organisations that are like-minded and ultimately have the same goal should be supportive and helpful to each other, not randomly choosing to publicly attack a compassionate, animal-loving organisation, that is actively addressing the problems head on.

Patients campaigning for Cures is assuredly not like-minded. They want science-based research that leads to cures, not the same ol same ol that has failed for over a century.

We expect to take some criticism from the pro-animal using lobbying groups which are backed by industry and many UK universities and other institutions. Receiving ill-informed and public criticism distracts the DHT from more important work and is a waste of our supporters donations.

There is very little criticism from pro-animal use groups who also adopt the 3Rs, but much from scientists that see the misleading presentation of science at DHT.

Language matters and when any organization says it does not they are joining groups like the racists and other segregationists in the southern USA in the mid 20th century. And mens’ rights advocates when they express their opinions regarding what women should and should not do in society.

Note that DHT ends its missive with an appeal for contributions.