Well, there are two basic, fundamental schools of thought here, and I think, ironically, both of them support animal testing. (Although, only for medical purposes.) With medical animal testing, more humans will be saved than animals hurt. I know these are ridiculous figures, but let's assume that animal testing will save one thousand humans, and kill one hundred animals. With a bit of very basic maths:
First school of thought: Humans are better than animals. So, we've just saved a thousand brillo humans, at the cost of a hundred less brillo animals. Bargin.
Second school of thought: Humans and animals are equal. Well, if they're equal, a human life has the same value as an animal life. So, with some algebraic substitution, you've just saved a thousand human lives at the cost of a hundred EQUALLY human lives. Bargin.
I suppose you could feel that animals are superior to humans... But that's a bit weird. Each to his own, though.
Of course, all this cosmetic crap on animals should be disallowed. Unfortunately, it won't be.