Yes, 'used' is a euphemism for purpose-bred and then experimented on and then killed. I am not trying to sugar-coat this by mentioning the efforts made to minim

Yes, 'used' is a euphemism for purpose-bred and then experimented on and then killed. I am not trying to sugar-coat this by mentioning the efforts made to minimize the suffering of the animals done as part of this process. It's a hard truth. Unfortunately with basic science it's not so easy as saying: research that eventually benefits people is OK, but everything else is not worth it. To look at this particular study: they are recording from cells in the hippocampus, an area that experiences atrophy and degeneration in both schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. There is a strong homology between rat and human biology in this area: anatomically, physiologically, and even in disease states. If you want to say that animal experimentation is never worth it, then you have to be willing to forgo whatever future benefits to humankind might accrue from this research, and you have to be comfortable making this decision for everyone else who might benefit. Ethically, you should probably also forgo any medical treatment that was developed on the backs of animal research. (Though you will still benefit from the eradication of many diseases and herd immunity to others). In terms of the scale and degree of suffering, and of ethics, I think there is much more clear-cut ground to be won in encouraging people not to breed and kill animals for food or sport, and in protecting wild animal habitat from ecological degradation.