Pro-Choice? Animal Testing? I needa debate.

[The_Rorschach]

This is silliness. If you truly want an answer to this question, I suggest you read up on Einstein and his views on Science, and the Scientists that serve it. He had a rather intriguing little parable about priests in a temple that I believe would fit aptly here and answer your questions.

The problem with your scenerio is inherently flawed by a fatal assumption; Namely that a hypothesis is already formed. Much of what is done within the Scientific community of late is more a recording of observations than a testing of hypothesis'. For a properly formed hypothesis to be established, it has to be composed of previously confirmed data directed at reaching a specific aim not simply an idle supposition which begins nowhere and ends in the air.

Idle suppositions, or poorly thought out hypothesis' will simply result in data, not additional progress towards a specific aim. You rarely find what you're not looking for.

In any case, animal testing makes it more convenient for such wasteful psuedo-scientific pursuits to occour. If they were utilized more like the finite resources they truly are, maybe then I would be open to negotiation on this subject, but as it is the 'Sacredness of Life' wins out