Lab rat - controversial testing.
Shac - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty - has been trying to prevent one of the largest animal test facilities in the world - Huntingdon Life Sciences - from testing on animals.
During the campaign staff cars were firebombed and the Managing Director - Brian Cass - was beaten with baseball bats.
Protestors also tried to force suppliers to sever all links with the company, tactics they hoped would shut it down.
Campaign of intimidation
Shac was formed in 1999 and for years the organisation was associated with a brutal campaign of intimidation and blackmail.
But has it really achieved anything?
Animal action protestors.
Or has it just succeeded in alienating the public and actually setting back the cause?
In January 2009 several members of Shac were imprisoned, some for 11 years.
Alan Buttle, who campaigns for the organisation, wasn't involved in any illegal action himself and still maintains that Shac operates within the law.
"I don't believe any one has terrorised anyone in the name of Shac. The real terrorism happens in the labs - the terror that is in the monkeys' eyes...
"There will always be people to stand up against injustice."
Increase in animal testing
Ten years after the campaign began Huntingdon Life Sciences is still running one of Europe's largest facilities.
In fact, Inside Out has found that animal testing has risen in the UK - every year for the last six years.
The latest government figures put tests at over 3m a year - that's over 8,000 a day.
Debbie Vincent - frustrated and angry.
The reason is that we understand much more about genetics.
Scientists are now breeding animals that have been genetically modified to study the underlying basis of disease.
Shac's Debbie Vincent told Inside Out that its campaign is far from over:
"If we can't do that in petitions, if we cannot do it by peaceful lobbying, then we will up the ante because if no one will listen to what we say all we have left is protests...
"With everything over the past few years, we have injunctions against us over lawful protests we are losing our right of democratic freedom of protest.
"People are frustrated over the inaction of the government and the vested interest from the vivisection industry in addressing these important issues...
"And there will be more direct - what people call 'clandestine' - action."
There are people in the scientific community who would also like to see an end to animal testing but not by using Shac's tactics.
Dr Margaret Clotworthy is the Science Consultant for the Safer Medicines Campaign, a group of doctors and scientists who want to see new technologies in place of animal tests.
Dr Margaret Clotworthy.
She says: "I think it really distracts from the issue on the one hand, and on the other it is very counter productive...
"We are looking at it from a purely scientific viewpoint irrespective of the ethical arguments which are always going to be very heated...
"I think that you really need to look at the evidence base for pursuing animals testing - or not.
"We really want to see the new technologies such as micro dosing human tissues, DNA chips, computer models, compared with the existing animal tests which are currently required."
By law drugs have to be tested on two species - a rodent and then a non rodent - which is usually a dog or a marmoset - before trials on humans.
But do animal tests actually work?
"More than nine out of 10 of every new drugs that makes it to clinical trial fails, so obviously the animal tests which preceded them are very very ineffective," says Dr Clotworthy.
Marmosets - unfair treatment?
"Even if when you have the 8% that go through to the markets, 50% of those will either be withdrawn or re-labelled because of undetected side effects."
This is a point that is as hotly contested today as it was 10 years ago.
Dr Simon Festing from Understanding Animal Research represents doctors and scientists who believe that tests are vital:
"Many clinical trials don't proceed because the medicine is not the most effective one or has new side effects which turn up in human clinical trials...
"The role of animals is to ensure that a potential medicine is not going to be poisonous or toxic to the first human volunteers..."
Scientific review needed?
Alternative testing technologies have moved quickly but there has never been a scientific review comparing the new methods with animal tests.
Some scientists want the government to commission a new type of review.
Meanwhile the desire to find out the underlying causes of diseases means animal tests will continue - and Shac has vowed to continue with its own campaign.
Alan Buttle says: "The time will come when animals are treated with the respect that they deserve and are treated as individuals - as opposed to commodities, objects to use for your own gain."
But Alan is also supportive of a scientific re-evaluation as a possible way forward.
"I sincerely do hope that an independent scientist does really look at the truth about animal testing.
"There is a truth that a lot of people don't want to hear."
last updated: 26/02/2009 at 16:48