Jury For Animal Testing

After the case today, I rule in favor of pro animal testing. I made this decision because they had solid, relevant evidence with reasonable analysis to back it up, while the con animal testing side mostly appealed to the jury members' feelings with sad picture and videos of hurt animals. The con side had a substantial amount of evidence, but it mostly repetitive and they were more reliant on  the videos of animals than persuading the jury to agree with their argument. The pro sides argument was that animal testing should be permitted because it is supported and regulated by scientists, animals make better test subjects, and it cures diseases for both humans and animals. Some interesting facts that they included were that 90% of scientists support animal testing, and it is a legal requirement by the governement to use animal testing for human safety. If the government and experienced scientists support animal testing, it seems as though it is the safe thing to do for human safety. The pro side also argued that we share 95% of our genes with mice and that cancer treatments from animal testing have increased the  U.S.  life expectancy by 10.7%. From this, it is reasonable to assume that animals are perfect test subjects and these tests certainly do benefit humans in a big way. Although the con side argued that a percent of animals are killed by animal testing, the benefits for humans and suffering animals outweigh the amount of animals- that might die from other causes anyway- that die from animal testing.