The reprieve for the Huntingdon Life Sciences animal research laboratory thanks to last-minute government help has sparked wide debate.

Labour MP Dr Ian Gibson is also a leading cancer specialist and lecturer. He told epxNews there is no other scientific option if life-saving drugs are to be developed safely. "There are scientific arguments about the use of animals but it comes down to one thing - we're all made of cells. I have yet to hear anything useful against this and a lot of what I have heard is anecdotal."

He said: "Animal tests are a necessary. You have to go through that phase to know what the drug does and what side effects there are. There isn't a drug in use that hasn't been tested on animals."

Gibson believed there was little point in trying to reason with the protestors that have waged campaigns against the financial backers of the company. "The animal rights people will not be persuaded. There's no way they will move. It's political action that must be met. Media images of pretty beagles are also a part of the problem. If you run a campaign you always pick up on the worst stories to make your case."

He defended the employees that work at the laboratory. "Some of my former students work at Huntingdon. They aren't a bunch of sadists that enjoy hurting animals. They really feel they are doing a good job, developing new drugs, dedicated to saving people's lives."

Gibson claimed there was only one stark alternative to animal testing. "If you ban animal experiments then you have to use human beings. You set up clinical trials - perhaps using students - go straight to humans and forget the animals. There are risks there too."