The first is the success of antivivisection campaigners in lampooning animal research as outdated, intentionally cruel, "bad" science, which achieves nothing. All drugs and procedures developed with the help of animal tests are said to be dangerous. The occasional failure of animal testing to identify a dangerous drug is developed as an argument for abandoning safety tests involving animals altogether---with no mention of the terrible human suffering that this would cause. They say that "alternative" methods already exist for all animal experiments, but the fact is that the law specifically forbids animal use if there is any alternative.
The second reason is that scientists and doctors have failed to oppose such misrepresentation. In the early 1990s, animal rights campaigning in the US was met with much more forthright defense, not only by the major scientific societies, funding agencies and medical organizations, but also by the US government.
To be positive, there are many encouraging features of the New Scientist poll. Interestingly, the public seems to employ the same kind of utilitarian philosophy that underpins the law in Britain--weighing potential benefits against the species involved (thus, monkeys are more "valuable" than mice) and the likelihood of suffering.
Clearly, people in Britain do not recognize the essential link between animal research and testing and the medical treatments that they receive. Only 18 percent of those who had taken (or had a close family member who had taken) a drug prescribed for a serious illness realized that the drug had been tested on animals, as all drugs are. Obviously, a large majority of those surveyed believe that they can happily benefit from medical treatment without taking advantage of animal research. No wonder so many people oppose it when asked the straight yes/no question.
The views of the public must be respected. But this poll tells us that, while they are open to persuasion, their reaction is based on misunderstanding. The responsibility for providing honest evidence for the public lies not just with those who use animals in their research, but with other scientists who depend on that work. It lies with the doctors who benefit from animal research, with the pharmaceuticals and biotech industries, and the medical charities and funding agencies whose work would be crippled without it. But most of all, responsibility rests with government, which should cultivate serious and transparent debate between those of different opinion, and provide the public--especially young people--with the honest evidence they need and deserve.
In the first sentence of Paragraph 3, "such misrepresentation" refers to _______.

A. the idea that other methods can be substituted for animal research
B. the claim that animal experiment is intentionally cruel
C. the belief that all drugs developed with animal tests are dangerous
D. the fact that scientists and medical organizations support animal experimentation