The argument isn't primarily a quantitative one. It's asking what it says about the so-called life sciences that they are based on torturing living beings.
I think it says more about the observer than life sciences.
Morality in the real world is complex and most of the heuristics we use in our daily lives rapidly break down when examining most anything in detail.
While life sciences have a tremendous potential to help humans and the world at large, but there are also hidden costs that laypeople may not be aware of.
Not exactly. We have tools to examine the validity and soundness of arguments people use when they make a claim about morality.
We do have some good tools to examine arguments. Most tools to judge moral frameworks are relatively poor.
Most of the heuristics people use in their daily were learned from Disney and are garbage.
Is that a joke? Rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes are all life forms. Poison ivy is a life form. Guinea worms are life forms.
We as intelligent beings get to decide what it all means. We can crush them, we can use them to our advancement, or we can set them up as gods and worship them.
But none of those things are beings. It's our language, and we , not mice, get to decide what the word "being" means.
being (countable and uncountable, plural beings)
A living creature.