Don't mistake me for someone who has a problem with animal research in its own right, but I'm having a hard time seeing the novelty here.
Old knowledge is useless to modern science, we need to continually re-express it in the modish jargon of the day or people won't accept it as true. Thus, generations of studies restating the same old crap with new methods.
It sucks as a learner. But for science and progress of knowledge, it provides an inefficient but lacks-false-positives mechanism.
It sucks for Liebniz, but was a positive for our understanding