Vivisection

In class today, we discussed the moral implications of a variety of topics, but one caught my attention the most.
The idea that experimenting on animals is considered a "need" by many that practice it, yet other alternatives are available, contradicting the idea of it being a need at all.

The National Anti-Vivisection Society (www.NAVS.org), based in Chicago, IL, combats animal experimentation and fights to close labs that practice it. According to the home page, "NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection."

Instead of experimenting on animals, NAVS suggests using human clinical trials for new drugs, because they are more effective and voluntary. Nobody will be forced into something, as animal test subjects are. Using animal models for human drugs doesn't work very well anyway since human biology is significantly different than animals so that drugs that work on the animals to combat certain things may not work on humans at all.
There is proof that in some cases drugs that cause birth defects in animals do not cause the same in humans. Some tumors in animals go away without drugs, whereas linger in humans without treatment. Why are animal models being used at all?
For the same reason why drugs tested on dogs and that work on dogs should not be used on cats, drugs tested on animals and work should not be used on humans.