Should researchers be allowed to use animals in testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics?

Yes, as long as the animals suffer zero pain or distress

No, animals react differently to humans on most medications so not only is it unethical to the animal, it's ineffective for the human.

No, it is cruel and ineffective

Yes but only rats or mice

No, unless there are no viable alternatives

I think we should not only aim to eliminate as much animal suffering in the process of testing medical developments as possible, and not use animals for cosmetics testing, but that we should also allow inmates serving life or death sentences to be granted incentives to sign up to help test medical developments AND cosmetics. As humans, their reactions to cosmetic products would be the closest possible to that of prospective customers for those products.

Only if circumstances require for potential life saving treatment and no alternative method is suitable

People who commit charges such as murder (not in self defence), and child molestation charges should be used instead.

Only when they are at least 85% confident it will work and never for cosmetic’s

No, if we are not willing to experiment with it on a human, we should not experiment with it on an animal.

Yes; animal testing is a vital component of the development of safe consumer medical devices and pharmaceuticals, and as such should be managed as humanely as possible.

this should never be done as it is cruel and inhumane, and it should be tested on people who willing want to be tested on

no cosmetics should not be used on animals. animal testing should only be for medicines and treatments that will prevent human death and suffering. animal testing should ensure no animals suffer during

Yes but only if there is no viable alternative and it's been approved by a medical oversight panel and state and territory governments.

No, it has been proven that computer models predict safety better than animal testing, and animals that are tested on lack the same anatomy or responses that humans have, so animal testing is useless.

No, this practise is cruel and unjust. If we want to test a medical product, use humans who have consented, not an animal in a cage.

Yes but there should be strict regulation and transparency on the treatment of animals used for animal testing

In most cases no, but some scientific and medical research requires testing on animals like mice, and this should be allowed.

Only for less harmful experiments, and with a full understanding of the potential harm to the animals.

So depends

In most cases no, but some scientifc and medical research requires testing on animals like mice, and this should be allowed

Yes, but the process should be regulated to ensure the animals are not unreasonably treated.

I do believe that it’s beneficial and important that they use some animals for testing but only when they are at least 85% confident it will work and never for cosmetic’s

Test on rapists instead.

Use criminals that are in jail instead

they need to do testing before

No, testing should be done on prisoners convicted of violent crimes.

Only testing performed on rats and mice

Use the prisoners that are in for violent crimes.

I hate to say yes! I think it is important that they use SOME animals for testing.. rats and mice... I know it's horrible. But I do believe it is beneficial.

Yes, as long as they are treated humanly and euthanised in the least painless way

Not for medical devices or cosmetics. Not for drugs or vaccines if they are not biologically related to humans and the results can’t be inferred / translated.

No, testing should be done on convicted violent criminals instead.

Instead of the death penalty we should be testing on violent criminals. As animals react to things differently than humans.

Yes, but only if it passes an ethical test

Only if no other options are available

Yes, but only for medical purposes, and only if humane treatment of the animals is defined and enforced

No, we have prisons full of rapists and pedophiles. Test on them.

For drugs, vaccines and medical devices

Yes, but not for cosmetics and only animals that are considered highly populated in the area they are gathering the animals from, such as “pests”

This question is so broad! No for cosmetics, but yes for things necessary for life, however it should be regulated, suffering should be minimised for the animal and we should be developing ways of testing that don't rely on animals.

As long as animals are not harmed

Yes, but only is extreme circumstances where there is no alternatives

Yes, but with the strictest of measures against unnecessary animal cruelty.

Yes, so long as it is regulated to avoid animal cruelty

Yes, but not if the risk of death is above 50%.

Difficult one. Overall no. At bare minimum, no suffering allowed.

This should be done on multiple crime offenders that fail to be rehabilitated and will spend their life in prison

Yes, Only if it's for fat

Yes, but only if they use human testing as well since animals and humans should be treated equally with the exception of livestock.

Definitely not, it has been proven the results aren't reliable for comparison against use in humans.

no, they should use high rated criminals

Very difficult question but nrcessary under strict legislation and oversight

No testing on dogs

Yes but should be heavily regulated to avoid abuse and suffering.

No test on people who have broken the law by hurting people or animals. It's the best deterent!

No suffering for the animal

No, they should use criminals who have committed heinous crimes!

No, they should use human trials.

Increase funding into more ethical testing options

Yes, but only when the drugs have been thoroughly tested

Yes but only where there is no suffering

Yes, if the products are for the good of human kind. (Not retail products).

No, any testing of human products should be conducted on humans

No, use rapists and pedophiles instead

Yes, but fund research into alternatives so we can eventually stop animal testing completely.

Yes but not for cosmetics or 'flavour development' or any other thing short of strictly medical and only within very strict guide lines which ensure minimal discomfort and suffering for the animals. Also, we need a system of information sharing in order to minimise the need for repeat experimentation.

As long as it's humanely carried out and for medical studies and the like that will further the human race

Yes, but only where the option presents a possibility of yielding new knowledge and / or safety improvements (in design, or implentation).

Yes, but should always be humane

Yes, but only if it is for animal related needs such as vaccines or medication, not human needs

No, test on humans. If you’re dumb enough.

No. They should use rapists, instead.

depends on the animal and how they will be treated

I hate to say it, but drugs , etc need to be tested before human consumption . Cosmetics definitely NO

Yes, if it does not induce damage or pain , and of which that is tested prior.

Only if humans treatment and animals do not suffer and not for cosmetics

Only for medical needs where no alternative proxy is required available.

No, unless there is absolutely no alternative and is for an incurable, life-threatening/quality disease or illness.

test them on vegans

Get me to test them

God created the amimals for us to care for them and food

No, but use down-syndromes or mentally ill humans instead

No, they should use death-row prisoners instead

Yes, but only bugs/rodents

Yes but with strict and careful regulations to make sure it is as humane as possible.

Not cosmetics, only medical units that are humane and will not make the animal suffer

Yes, but only in the final stages of testing.

Yes, Most basic testing first to make percentage of negative effect below 20%

Yes, but only if it is scientifically proven but past results and future indicators and strengthen unjustified animal testing regimes and practices

Yes, but only when absolutely neccisary, not for cosmetics

Yes, as long as there are no endangered animals being tested on

No, we can always use inmates that have committed crude crimes (serial killers, child molesters, etc) to test these things as animals don't mimic the human body better than the actual human body.

Yes, if done following ethics procedures

If there are now other ways around it for important medical research studies. As long as it's done as 'cruelty free as possible'. Pain killers etc provided. Not for cosmetics & mediocre things

No, they should use criminals on a death sentence.