Against animal experiments: Experimenting on animals is always unacceptable because: it causes suffering to animals the benefits to human beings are not proven any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways

The equivalent case against is that the level of suffering and the number of animals involved are both so high that the benefits to humanity don't provide moral justification.

The three Rs are: Reduction, Refinement, Replacement.

Not a week goes by without news of a lab breakthrough using rats or mice. But of all the promising medical interventions that make it to animal trials, only a fraction seem to translate into major breakthroughs for humans.

Regulatory agencies in the U.S.—including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration—as well as regulatory agencies in the European Union and elsewhere in the world require chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and many other products to be tested for toxicity. Animals are forced to ingest or inhale—or are injected with—toxic substances such as gasoline components and mercury. Animals used in these tests suffer extreme pain before they are killed, dissected, and thrown away like garbage.

The following are just some of the accomplishments of PETA's Regulatory Testing group:

an American entrepreneur, investor, stockbroker, motivational speaker, author, and philanthropist who, during the early 1980s, struggled with homelessness while raising his toddler son, Christopher, Jr.[1] Gardner's book of memoirs, The Pursuit of Happyness, was published in May 2006.[2]

An inalienable right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, in addition to life and liberty; the right to pursue any legal activity as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.