I'm not sure. if I need it to survive? yeah, probably. I'm vegetarian but I'd kill animals if the alternative were starving. all the meds I take were tested on animals, some of them probably primates.

if there's an alternative that's a bit crappier but pretty usable? then I'd choose that.

if the alternative only lets me eke out a meager existence, dependent on help and unable to work? I'd probably still go with what works, even if it means animals were harmed. I dunno if that makes me a crappy person, but it's hard feeling this helpless.

I think this makes you an honest person.

I imagine most people wouldn't admit to it, but when it came down to it, would go the same way. Hunger and survival changes people.

It's not the personal gain. The results of the experiment can be used not only for humans but for animals as well. Refrasing your comment, are you comfortable torturing many humans and animals (alive and not yet born) in order to save several tens of monkeys?

They wouldn't be used for animals because there is no return of investment on that.

Ethics don't by nature stop suffering of the many. What they do is protect the few from being defined as arbitrarily less valuable than the many and thus being exploited. I think there are plenty of history lessons around that one which are worth reflecting on.

Edit: to be clear, both our perspectives are valid. But one does not allow arbitrary escalation of harm to others.