Yesterday (9/28/04), I forwarded a Newsday article on vivisection, "Where pain can lead to progress; Deep divide over the merits of animal research."
Newsday ran a second article in the series, the next day, 9/27, "Science at a Price; Ethics as the argument: New questions are raised about whether the gains of animal research are worth the ethical uncertainties" at:
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsdivid273986563sep27.story

They also ran 2 other related articles:

 (1). "In the quest for knowledge," 9/27 at: http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-2dex23986553sep27,0,5213959.story

NOTE: The only sources listed for the above, totally pro-vivisection article (a history of the wonders of animal research) are: American Heart Association; Food and Drug Administration; Drugs.com; Columbia Encyclopedia; angioplasty.com; "Cardiology's 10 Greatest Discoveries of the 20th Century,'' Dr. Nirav J. Mehta and Dr. Ijaz A. Khan, Texas Heart Institute Journal. 2002. vol. 29 (3): pp. 164-171; National Library of Medicine; Foundation for Biomedical Research; Research Defence Society; Americans for Medical Progress; staff reporting. NO anti-vivisection groups were interviewed.

 (2). "Local animal research-related incidents," 9/29/04 at: http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hstime092704,0,6642010.story

For this story the listed sources are Foundation for Biomedical Research, PETA and newspaper accounts.

The articles, at best, mention some of the cruelty of animal research. On the whole, they are clearly biased toward vivisection.