The only research made obsolete by reduction of animal use is unnecessary replication studies. Replication of findings is undeniably an essential component of the discovery process, however without the proper communication of the replicated findings, many other replications are likely to be performed unnecessarily. Reduction would also necessitate proper study planning in order to minimize the amount of animals used in unnecessary manipulations, such as probing for effective doses in a particular drug-efficacy paradigm when the necessary data may already exist in the literature. Thus, reduction would increase the necessity for researchers to keep abreast of the current research in their field. Animals are also expensive to obtain and maintain, thus reduction of their use would prove cost-effective in labs where animal care costs comprise a large part of the research budget.
Replacement refers to seeking alternative model systems to replace the current animal models.
In vitro methods currently enjoy modest overall success in replacing animals in biomedical research, however in certain areas of research, such as toxicology and product-testing, in vitro studies are widely used and may eventually fully replace animal testing. A common argument against replacement methods is that they do not present as valid comparisons to animal models. So these replacement methods need only be analyzed for their validity as models of the human condition, a scenario in which these methods may achieve equal validity as animal models. It is a common practice in laboratories to run an experiment on an animal until the required data are collected and then euthanizing the animal. This is an appropriate and effective technique in cases where the animal has undergone rigorous examination, invasive procedures, multiple drug exposures, or myriad other debilitating experimental procedures.