Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. By your standard it is just ok.
Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture, be it an interrogated witch, 911 terrorist, Jew in concentration camp being experimented on or a dog being vivisected.
> Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use.
No. The idea became repugnant to some [the most advanced people of the time] and through their effort the analgesics started to be used. In particular, ether was first used for surgery in 1846, while vivisection was still legal for more than half a century after that.
Or do you mean UCSF doesn't have analgesics available:
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-res...
> Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist.
That a convenient lie - alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years.
>Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all.
False scare, like security vs. liberty. The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Live and let live.