Odd, isn't it, how scientists, a secular bunch for the most part, seem to play an almost God-like role when it comes to deciding who shall live and who shall die, who is good and who is bad, who is worthy and who is pre-destined for a life of experimental hell.
Strange too, with all the emphasis on science being rational, logical and objective, that most scientists have no idea how subjective their work really is, and how blind they are to their own biases. Even the very question you ask is bathed in bias and automatically influences or even taints whatever results you get, and as someone who once dabbled a bit in statistics in a previous occupational career, I can tell you that you can skew or present numbers in ways that will reflect whatever it is you want.
You know my thoughts already on the hideous practice of vivisection including less invasive types of experimentation. What you wouldn't do to a human, you shouldn't do to any sentient being. No day, week or even year can ameliorate this abomination until scientists wake up and become more honest about what it is they're doing and why, both to themselves and to the general public. But we sure can pressure them, and do our bit to inform that public of what's really going on. Hell yeah!