I think this serves as a good example of (one of) the issues with animal testing. The scientist in this article doesn't think that we need to "redo decades of animal research", but it certainly casts doubt on previous results.
In general, testing on animals isn't effective. Considering the amount of suffering it inflicts on animals, I'm not sure that it's morally defensible. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection has a [good resource][1] on the issues.
In general, testing on animals isn't effective. Considering the amount of suffering it inflicts on animals, I'm not sure that it's morally defensible. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection has a [good resource][1] on the issues.
[1]: http://buav.org/humane-science/key-criticisms/