Jim Crawford asks if it's my opinion drugs must be tested on animals to "prove they are safe" (Oxford Mail, September 18).

The answer is 'no'. It's impossible, as I'm sure he knows, to prove safety 100 per cent.

All you can do is as much as possible to see if drugs cause side-effects, then decide if the risks are worth the benefits.

Sadly, doing as much as possible includes animal tests.

Mr Crawford also keeps saying that I "claim" to be a writer. Why? He might as well say I claim to be female.

It's not important what I think. I'm just an ordinary working mum trying to stand up against the misinformation of a few people who wouldn't hurt an animal, even to save a child's life.

So here are some opinions really worth reading: "Work with animals continues to be essential. Some major advances rely on animal-based studies."

Who said this? Well, only the people we all rely on - doctors, nurses, researchers etc.

About 200 charities endorse this statement, via membership of the Association of Medical Charities, including the Alzheimer's Society, Children with Leukaemia, Marie Curie, Psoriasis Association and Cancer Research. See www.amrc.org.uk for the others.

Lots of charities also have their own statements. The National Osteoporosis Society says: "Research using animals will continue to be essential for the conquest of many unresolved medical problems." Instead of giving me more publicity for my freelance career, Mr Crawford should be writing to the charities.

Alison Eden, Lime Walk, Headington, Oxford