Vivisection is unethical. It is a perversion of altruism. The deliberate premeditated torture of innocent beings in ways that would not be done to the most despised criminals in history and calling it an act of compassion. Like evicting a family from their home to help a homeless person and calling oneself kind. The torture is excused by a mythological claim that humans are superior in value as a group to their victims and can do as they wish–but any trait put forth to suggest human superiority-from intellect to a soul to divine or Natural favor to survival of the fittest to contractualism etc are based on subjective personal whim and not absolute–not only can the claim that all humans possess said quality or attribute be disputed, but Nature or alleged Deities and the actions of humans do not demonstrate this supremacy. The claim of human supremacy because of intellect or a soul or Manifest Destiny or anything else is as arbitrary as claims that an orange is superior in the universe to an apple or that one human is superior to another as an absolute fact if they can dribble a basketball. The universe does not make judgement calls.
Weather and gravity do not grant special favor for humans, invisible and mute deities do not make their “absolute” judgements clear enough so as to deter humans from devising their own personal religious views and killing those that disagree with them. And that is the greatest evidence of the falsehood of human supremacy–humans routinely discriminate against and exploit other humans-to the point where we have laws to discourage this (but it still happens).
If you believe humans deserve special moral protection then your biggest problem is that such a biased non-objective and non absolute personal belief is no different in structure from that used by a racial supremacist or a religious bigot or any other human who would like to refine their discrimination beyond a species line(and Nature and alleged divinities do not discourage this from happening).
To be a human supremacist is to condone the logic of a racial supremacist which you condemn.
Your only way to close the loophole that would allow a racial/religious/class etc. supremacist from being able to defend their discrimination using the same non absolute and personal subjective that a human supremacist uses is to drop the arrogant myth and extend moral regard beyond human beings.
Any effort to dispute this is stricken by the reality of human predation upon itself.
If you say life is survival of the fittest and humans can do as they wish to nonhumans then someone can point out that some humans are stronger or smarter than other humans and could victimize them based on that moral principle since human supremacy cannot be proven (Nature/Deities are not shown to intervene).
If you say morality is based on the ability to honour moral contracts then children, the mentally impaired, and criminals should be left out of the benefits if you apply the standard fairly since human supremacy cannot be proven.
If you say a divine being states humans are superior then someone else can make the same claim but use race or gender or religious preference or appearance as their basis for discrimination.
This happens even with our laws designed to discourage such actions.
If you say morality needs to be perfect and humans could not extend moral regard to all beings at all times therefore the logical dividing line should be human status–then the same imperfection is true for human rights. If the fact that we cannot stop child abuse or homicide doesnt mean we shouldnt try or that concentration camps are justified, then the fact that one cannot stop the accidental killing of an insect or microbe doesnt mean vivisection labs are justified.