Speaking as someone whose university has just been slandered, to put it bluntly, by the likes of Animal Aid, no it would not. Often these reports are very misinformed and misleading, or at worst, downright untrue. Rarely do they define exactly what is meant by 'animal testing', for example they include studies on pet animals owned by volunteers, which I think is a world away from lab rats in cages. These studies are often meant to improve the welfare of animals, and there are extremely strict regulations in place to ensure absolutely minimal animal suffering. The UK has the strictest system in the world in terms of animal testing. A license has to be granted by the Home Office in order for it to be legally carried out, and the license won't be given unless it can be proven that the research can't be achieved by any other practical method (computer simulations etc), that it's using the species with the least neurophysiological sensitivity possible for the research, that it's going to cause the least pain, suffering and distress possible (including the fewest possible animals to produce a reliable result), and that the tests are likely to produce satisfactory results. The people who carry out this work aren't sadists, and without full understanding, some organisations often paint a very distorted picture of what goes on.