It is an alternative way to get results without harm any people or animal.

Good idea

When possible, great idea. The pertinent question being, though, how do you arrive at an accurate model, without first having validated the results of the model? This is generally true, for any use of mathematical modeling.

I know that among veterinary clinicians, this type of medical research, using live animals, is viewed with great skepticism or outright disapproval. And I fully sympathize with their reluctance. But I have to think that these controversial practices have to examined on a case by case basis, to determine whether viable alternatives exist, in our pursuit for medical breakthroughs.

Exists cases described in the medical literature, that studies in mice really helped to save human life, for example, that case of a British physician that traveled to Africa to help care the Ebola victims in the last great disease outbreak, and in this case, that physician contracted the disease. Then that physician was brought back to England to try to treat him with all known therapies, which failed. Then one laboratory told that they had an experimental vaccine that it was tested only in mice, and showed efficacy against the virus. So, as that physician had a great chance to die, the government accepted to test the experimental vaccine in him. And it worked. So to those that criticize the use of animals in science, mainly in life and medical sciences, excluding aesthetics purposes as using of animals in tests for cosmetics, what I'm against also, present alternatives. Because only criticize doesn't help.