Supporters of nonhuman experimentation often argue that, i) A practice that dir

Supporters of nonhuman experimentation often argue that,
i) A practice that directly benefits human health and well-being is morally okay — assuming that it does not violate other morally important principles, values, rights, entitlements, etc., in the process.
ii) Experimenting on nonhumans directly benefits human health and well-being. For example, penicillin, blood transfusions, tuberculosis, asthma, etc.
iii) Experimenting on nonhumans does not violate other morally important principles, values, rights, etc.
C ) Thus, experimenting on nonhumans is morally okay.
Most opponents to nonhuman experimentation accept premise (i) and focus on falsifying or casting doubt on premises (ii) & (iii).
Opponents attempt to cast doubt on premise (ii) by providing alternative interpretations of the supposed “facts” leading up to the development of a medicine, technique, etc., that has directly benefited human health and well-being. For example, opponents to nonhuman experimentation will often claim that nothing of direct human benefit was learned and/or discovered in penicillin research until actual human trials were performed and that the detour through nonhuman experimentation was in fact an unhelpful, and in some cases dangerous, tangent. See Monkey Business 2 for examples of this form of counter-interpretation reasoning.
Opponents attempt to cast doubt on premise (iii) by providing various morally important principles, values, etc., that are supposedly violated by nonhuman experimentation. For example, some have claimed that nonhuman experimentation violates the ‘Golden Rule’, that it is un-kind, not compassionate, indecent, etc. Others have claimed that nonhuman experimentation is speciesist and therefore just as morally terrible as racism, sexism, ageism, etc. Finally, some have claimed that nonhuman experimentation violates various ‘rights’ that all creatures possess, e.g., the right ‘to be left alone’, the right ‘to not be used as a mere means to someone else’s ends’, etc.
See Experimenting for a Healthier Human World (SE) Parts 1 & 2 for more details.
This week’s questions:
1) Assuming that human health and well-being sometimes directly benefits from nonhuman experimentation, are such benefits enough to morally justify and/or cancel out much of the nonhuman pain, suffering, etc., that sometimes results from nonhuman experimentation? If so, why so? If not, why not?
2) Does the practice of nonhuman experimentation seem to violate the ‘Golden Rule’ i.e., to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’? If so, then is violating this rule sufficient to say that the practice of nonhuman experimentation is immoral? Your reasoning?
3) Does the practice of nonhuman experimentation seem to violate one or more morally important values, e.g., kindness, compassion, decency, respect, etc.? Your reasoning?
4) Does the practice of nonhuman experimentation seem especially speciesist and in turn just as morally suspect/bad as racism, sexism, etc.? Your reasoning?
5) Finally, does the practice of nonhuman experimentation seem to violate one or more ‘rights’ that all creatures inherently have, e.g., the right ‘to be left alone’, the right ‘to not be used as a mere means to someone else’s ends’ etc.? Your reasoning?