I've never seen a more text book example of changing the subject when you don't have a real answer.
sk0g and hobofan point out a key benefit of animal testing, explain why there is no alternative at present, and rather than addressing that or acknowleding the point, you respond with non-sequiturs.
Try to learn to separate what you want to be true "animal testing is pointless" vs what is actually true "animal testing has benefits that cannot be sensibly found any other way". Then we can productively move towards eliminating animal testing. But if you won't even listen to others points, how do you hope to convince them of anything?
Animal testing is all over biochemistry and biology, is not just used for pharmaceutical and cosmetics testing. Many ground braking discoveries have been (and are still being made) via animal testing. There are whole subdisciplines that are based around animal testing like developmental or behavioural biology.
Though you can avoid it if you really want to, if you study biochemistry, you will learn how to do animal testing and are taught about all the ethics involved, how to do the testing in the most humane way, and how to avoid (or minimize) doing it in the first place if possible.
I've been going through the list of recent Nobel Prizes and the research for these involved animal testing: Nobel Prize for medicine 2018 (mice), 2017 (flys), 2014 (rats), 2012 (frogs, mice). Older research made before we had good tools to work with cell cultures, etc. will probably skew even more towards animal testing.
No, probably not. I'm sure they are just giving Nobel Prizes for Medicine out for funny discoveries rather than for findings that form the basis of most of our current and future medicine.
> Could they be done without testing?
Sure they could! But scientists just love to make animals suffer!
