Most would agree that animal testing is indeed unethical, the real question should be: to what extent can we reduce the unethical treatment towards animal models in order to produce a viable medical device? The method of euthanasia for example, is done in a way that is as most pain-free as possible (i.e. IV anaesthetics, controlled-atmosphere killing) which is at least more ethical than using more conventional methods. It is a fact that biotech companies nowadays are attempting to transition away from animal testing, but not likely for ethical reasons, more for the acquisition of accurate data. Since animals are a different species from humans, their biological responses to pre-clinical treatments can differ from an actual patient. This can be concerning when coming up with the design for a new drug or device that is administered to human patients. I mentioned in another forum that Loreal tests their lotion-based products on tissue engineered human skin, or cadaverous skin taken from an organ donor to attain more precise results. The limitation to doing this however, is that it is not as cost-effective as using animals since more processing has to go into preparing the human skin for it to behave as if it were alive. Since we kill animals for food and sport in ways that do not resemble euthanasia whatsoever, I think animal testing is acceptable when attempting to synthesize a life-saving product with no other alternative. Simply put, if you want to make an omelete, you have to break some eggs.