Although it gets short shrift in today's hysterical moral arena, freedom of choice is not exactly immoral in a free society, especially a secular one dominated by moral relativism. The subjectivity underlying most claims to the moral high ground is demonstrated by new-age protesters who, when accused of behaving immorally, merely scoff at the suggestion. The morality which other people invoke need not be taken seriously. A moral case can also be made in favour of more, not less, animal testing. Ironically, medical researchers are on the defensive even though stunning scientific and technological breakthroughs mean that research animals are now used with unprecedented effectiveness and applicability to humans.
Biotechnology can, for example, also benefit animals and the environment.
Even without these advances, the moral case for limiting medical research on behalf of mice has not been convincingly made. No individual or organisation need feel apologetic for giving people priority over animals. Protesters are all too eager to cast the first tomato, eager to make gestures, however sentimental or vacuous or inconsistent. But no company wants to invite those tomatoes by going public with a controversial code. On the other hand, a 'safe' formulation designed to please everyone will probably satisfy none.