Wehnelt & Wilkinson (2005) suggest that I am confused about the aim of the Zoos Directive, stating that it is ‘… to further the conservation role of zoos rather than increasing research activities.’ On the contrary, they have confused the aim with the means of compliance. Participating in research is but one means by which a zoo may demonstrate a conservation role. I have not suggested that research activity should be increased, or that poorly resourced zoos should develop research programmes, or indeed that research is a compulsory activity. I have merely suggested that much of the research undertaken in zoos is not directly relevant to conservation and, as such, does not fulfil the requirements of the Directive. Wehnelt & Wilkinson have produced no evidence to the contrary.