system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Does human experimentation result in a higher utility than animal experimentation?

Animal experimentation causes suffering, since it is based on, for example, deliberately causing illnesses such as cancer in the subjects. If its results outweigh the suffering caused by conducting such research, then it means it would be even better to use humans as subjects since the trials' results would be significantly more accurate (animals often react differently to various substances and stimuli than humans do). Higher accuracy of the research means fewer experiments would be necessary, and the resulting new methods of treatment would be more effective. Is there any argument against this reasoning?

Obviously, I'm not actually arguing for human experimentation. It is an ad absurdum against animal experimentation.
gpt
You know, this is an empirical, not a philosophical question. Generally speaking, animal and human experiments are tightly regulated, with the goal of balancing the necessary suffering, the rights of humans and the expected utility. 

> then it means it would be even better to use humans as subjects since the trials' results would be significantly more accurate (animals often react differently to various substances and stimuli than humans do).

Yes and no - again, this is an empirical question. Not all  animal experiments are the same. Figuring out the LD50 of a given drug in mice is highly valuable information before going for human experiments. Knowing how a molecule in a cell reacts to a drug is equally important. Etc, etc.

But anyway, it seems to me that you are arguing from an armchair here without understanding what animal experiments are, what they are for, etc.