> There is no replacement for animal models, except trials in humans, so if the alternative is that we do more, riskier trials on humans, then I'd much prefer animal testing

Totally true, but, at the same time---

Computational models have prevented all kinds of unnecessary animal testing of things that can be shown computationally to be unlikely to work. So, computational models avoid us doing more, riskier trials on animals.

Of course, we've not reduced animal testing-- instead we've just pursued more compounds and ideas. I'd argue it's worth it for speeding up the pace of medicine. But these things are not completely orthogonal.