Try the political quiz

8.4k Replies

@936SFYDLabor answered…4mos

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

@934XZ33Green answered…5mos

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

@934JY6SIndependent answered…5mos

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.

@9346VCD answered…5mos

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

@9346PS9 answered…5mos

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.

@9344NGN answered…5mos

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

@9343X6H answered…5mos

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

@9336MMR answered…5mos

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

@932V8HS answered…5mos

Yes but only after proving products are not knowingly harmful and with strict guidelines to manage the process to look after animal welfare

@932KYZF answered…5mos

Yes, but only if they are willing to submit to regular and rigorous inspections by the RSPCA

@932FW2M answered…5mos

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

@92ZGK6F answered…5mos

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”

@92ZDX7KGreen commented…5mos

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.

@92WGMNS answered…5mos

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

@92WG8RX answered…5mos

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

@92TND2PGreen answered…5mos

@92SFTXGLabor answered…5mos

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

@92S36KT answered…5mos

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

@92R4JBQ answered…5mos

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

@92Q385LIndependent answered…5mos

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

@92N7QDB answered…5mos

Very difficult question but nrcessary under strict legislation and oversight

@92HCK2P answered…5mos

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

@92H2RGX answered…5mos

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

@92C8NLZ answered…6mos

@92BVDQ4 answered…6mos

Not for cosmetics and other alternatives should be encouraged for medical testing to transition us away from animal testing altogether if at all possible

@9288V86 answered…6mos

@923XJTT answered…6mos

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

@9236KWK answered…6mos

@8ZWYDKVGreen answered…6mos

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

@8ZTD5RWOne Nation answered…7mos

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.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...