[Perndog]

Okay, you say a good hypothesis must be "composed of previously confirmed data," and proceed toward a specific aim while "poorly thought out hypothesis' will simply result in data" with no specific aim.

Then where do you get the "previously confirmed data" needed for a proper hypothesis?

Anyway, using this as an argument against animal testing in general doesn't work. The fact remains that even with a specific goal and an excellent idea, there will be experiments that require living creatures. To say we must never perform these experiments and we must either remain where we are or proceed very slowly in certain areas of knowledge (at the possible cost of human health and life) simply because you think that a rabbit's life is sacred is unacceptable.

You can make a case for "sacred" with a lot of people, but lives, even human lives, are in no way finite resources. All creatures reproduce.

As for "you rarely find out what you're not looking for," I was under the impression that unexpected results were the basis for several major discoveries. Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus and the development of penicillin come to mind. This does not support the wanton sacrifice of animals, but it is a case for open-ended experimentation rather than narrow and specific scientific goals.