> Once you accept that parallelizing is a legitimate strategy with a clear tradeoff That's the question. Is parallelizing animal testing and ramping up the num

> Once you accept that parallelizing is a legitimate strategy with a clear tradeoff That's the question. Is parallelizing animal testing and ramping up the number of animals used a legitimate strategy and does it have a clear tradeoff? No one in is arguing that animal rights only matter in lab testing. Rather, there are two arguments that can be made: - A) parallelization of animal testing is sloppy research that won't lead to better results. - B) the benefits of parallelization don't outweigh the moral cost of animal rights. Those are two separate arguments, and the parent comments were primarily arguing around A. B is orthogonal. That doesn't mean that B is an irrelevant argument or that there's no case to be made for animal welfare in testing, but it's a separate argument from A.