We are grateful to the commentators for their close reading of our article1 and for their challenging and interesting responses to it. We do not have space to respond to all of the objections that they raise, so in this reply, we address only a selection of them.

Some commentaries question the usefulness of developing an account of the sort we provide,2 or of revising the Standard Account (SA) in doing so.3–5 Our schema is intended to provide a framework for developing a full account of invasiveness that captures existing uses of the term. On the assumption that the term is used somewhat reliably and consistently–and we are inclined to agree with some of our commentators3 4 that people are not terribly confused or mistaken in how they employ the term–an account that captures these uses will have a claim to being considered a good account of invasiveness.

Of course, it may well be that we should prefer an account–such as the SA–that does not capture all uses of the term. We suggested–and would like to re-emphasise–that we are open to the possibility that some existing uses of ‘invasive’ should be rejected as confused or mistaken. We suspect, for example, that …