"facts"

According to Peter Singer's sources, “perhaps 3.5 percent of the fall in the overall death rate can be explained through medical interventions…” (91). So with this decline in mortality, only 3.5 can be attributed to medical interventions, which means that animal experimentation is an even smaller portion of that number. There are other ways to solve diseases and test chemicals; animals need not suffer any longer. 

Then in The Animal Rights Debate, Carl Cohen quotes a statement by the Council of Scientific Affairs. According to the Council, they think: "Animals have proved to be invaluable in the pursuit of knowledge in the life sciences, and the knowledge gained often benefits both animals and humans . . . Many of today's most vexing health problems will be solved by research on animals. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome [AIDS], Alzheimer's disease, coronary heart disease, and cancer represent but a few of the nation's most troubling health problems" (123). 

It's difficult to determine which is more accurate. Both of them are trying to get the reader to join their side of the argument, which I think would entail them to use whatever means possible. Many of Singer's examples of animal cruelty are outdated and who is to say that these aren't isolated cases of extreme animal mistreatment being used for persuasion? Cohen quotes numerous scientists who have their own interests in the continuation of animal research. I guess I will have to see how Tom Regan responds to Carl Cohen to see where my ever changing opinions go next!