Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to implement laws protecting animals. In 1822 an Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle was passed by Parliament. The UK government has publicly stated that animals are sentient beings, not merely commodities, and has confirmed its commitment to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. Animal Welfare Act, an overhaul of pet abuse laws replacing the Protection of Animals Act, came into force in England and Wales in 2007.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Constituency:
No, use lab grown cells instead
@9WFKLPJ5mos5MO
Shouldn't humans be testing other humans instead of non-human animals? After all, most of these products are intended strictly for human consumption.
yes but no? dependant on what animals they are as some are very different to humans and some are very similar such as pigs. cosmetics absolutely not
No, instead we should be allowed to test on humans if they have signed up to it, wish to die or have committed the worst possible crimes with undeniable evidence
@9PX4V6S9mos9MO
Testing should be done on murderers or rapists compared to animals as what those people have done is already inhumane
Providing that any outcome is species relevant and that the benefits could prevent undeniable catastrophe
@9PRFKXV9mos9MO
No, convicted criminals serving life sentences should do their part for society and be tested on. It will provide more accurate results.
@9PK2P7R9mos9MO
Definitely not for cosmetics. I believe it depends on the way they are treating animals in term of testing on them for medication purposes. As long as they are not treating them cruelly then I don't think it's awful, but it still doesn't give them a good quality of life, so should only be used when desperately needed
I think it is acceptable for vital medical research that animals are used but not for cosmetic/beauty products.
only if it’s completely necessary, a human can not be used, and measures are taken to ensure the animal does not come to any harm
@9PCXQMQ9mos9MO
Personally from working with animals I agree yes they should but as long as the environment and treatment of the animals is to the highest standards and the testing labs are regularly checked on and there are few of them rather than lots of them and videos enriching of the neglect of animals they should have the same treatment as humans as they are doing us a favour by being tested on
On vermin's as they poisonous and cause more harm to society and species than good. We need to stop draining cow's for milk, their milk is for their offspring's not designed for humans. Would humans share their milk with animal species.
Don’t test products on animals but humans in a controlled environment. Accelerate drugs testing in humans
Yes, but with very strict rules and guidelines, and checks to make sure the animals are being treated well.
Yes and no as how would new drugs and vaccines , medical devices and cosmetics be published if hasn’t passed animal test
I agree that animals should be allowed to test drugs, vaccines and medical devices, but not the testing of cosmetics.
we should be looking towards companies that use research without animal testing like Nc3r's. cosmetics are take a long jump from this debate and should be banned based on it's a vanity service.
@9FK27M62yrs2Y
Yes so long as reduced risk of harm to animals.
@9FJ3WJZ2yrs2Y
So long as it is ethical and heavily regulated
No, but if its intended purposes for the animals, yeah
Depending on the possible side effects
I am ambivalent on this . Definitely not for cosmetics but life saving vaccines or anti cancer drugs ..
Only if it is not too dangerous substances.
@9DCYLDB2yrs2Y
Yes, but not for cosmeticts, and in the final stages of a product
@9D6P9262yrs2Y
Yes, but only for relatively unintelligent species
Yes but not for cosmetics and only rodents, no primates, cats,dogs or rabbits
@988TY7W2yrs2Y
Yes but not if the animal is close to extinction
If it is vital to further the scientific research being conducted, However it should not if there are other readily available options
@9KGMMZS1yr1Y
Yes, but only when there is a predicted pragmatic application of the science (e.g. to medicine), and an ethics board should always be consulted.
If they are desperate to continue selling then that should be the very least resort, or just test on humans
depends on if the animal is useful to the environment or not
@9N32XRH10mos10MO
In a humane way that does not permanently damage the animal, for example genetic modification that causes lifelong suffering
Complicated issue. As a former researcher I appreciate the value of animal testing for medicinal purposes although I don't find it an attractive practice.
@8Y39G963yrs3Y
Yes, but only if absolutely necessary and not for cosmetics.
@9D2Q5C82yrs2Y
Yes, but allow animals to be voluntarily replaced with humans for those willing.
Yes but not with the chance of death
Sometimes, with safeguards.
@9BKZLTB2yrs2Y
Yes, but only on animals such as rats and mice.
@97MBBY72yrs2Y
Not comfortable with it, but don’t know.
Only where absolutely essential for drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. Never for cosmetics!
@96PQCF32yrs2Y
No, but while it's the only option and until we can find a better one, it is acceptable
Yes but with regulations in place
Yes, as long as there is proof there will be no significant damage to them
Yes until we have the resources for more efficient models
Yes, if no other alternatives are available, and it can truly lead to a positive advance in medicine
@95NZHLT3yrs3Y
it should be done after extra tests on dead things to make sure that the animal will come to no harm
If it does not hurt the animal and they are in no pain
Yes but need to make sure it doesn’t kill it
Yes but only for drugs and vaccines
Yes as long as they have passed all prior tests
@8ZVV4QH3yrs3Y
Only in very extreme circumstances such as vaccines for public health otherwise no
As long as the testing dose not harm the animals
Only if it dose not harm the animal in any way
Yes, but only if they are unhealthy already and in pain or they are somewhat willing, it should not be a painful experience
@8YMNY8M3yrs3Y
No, just for human volunteers or those on death row in other countries
Yes, only if absolutely necessary and not for cosmetics.
@8YG28T93yrs3Y
Only if it is safe for the animal
Small animals yes, pets/larger animals no
Yes, but regulation must be strict to ensure all companies do their utmost to ensure animals are not unnecessarily harmed
Yes but as long as it is needed and the animal is not harmed in any way
There should be either voluntary trials on humans who accept and consent or use criminals as a part of their sentencing should to accept.
@8XXD38B3yrs3Y
As long as it doesn't cause harm to the animal or the environment
Test it on rapists, molesters and other sex offenders
Only if it will be used for severe dieseases
No they should use prisoners facing death row
@8WTNF6XLiberal Democrat3yrs3Y
Yes as long as it doesn't cause pain or death
yes because otherwise we wouldn't know if things would work however, it can also kill a lot of animals and they might wend up extinct
No, unless it will not cause them any distress or harm
@8WJ2Y763yrs3Y
Only animals that are at risk of dying/ are likely to die anyway
Not too many animals and a minority of a species.
Yes, if no alternative biological substance can be found, or created, for medical purposes—and testing against human subjects is seen as far too risky. Not for cosmetics.
No, there are alternatives like in vitro methods
Yes, only if the animals circumstancially require they're use.
Yes as long as the animals aren't hurt killed at the end of the experiment
If there’s a safer alternative to testing all of the above on beings that aren’t human without a detriment to nature, then yes but, there should be a significant attempt to find safer methods.
Yes but only if it involves no suffering and never for cosmetics.
If its not considered as torcher
acceptable for drugs and vaccines not cosmetics
@8TF32PT4yrs4Y
No, not unless there aren't any alternatives to animal testing for testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics.
No - More investment and research needs to be done into using computer modelling as animals are not humans and although similar not exact enough.
Medical yes. Cosmetic - no
No, unnecessary for cosmetics, inefficient in medical practise - diverts money away from finding newer, more effective and efficient methods.
As long as it doesn't hurt them.
yes to medicine trials but not for cosmetics
Only in very specific cases when there isn’t is the safest alternative and only for medicine
it depends, if they HAVE to, then sure if not then no
Yes, but only if absolutely necessary and no alternatives available
Yes where absolutely necessary, but consider volunteers who will be paid by the companies who are high earners and likewise should be compelled to pay for treatment of those who suffer side effects. Waivers would need to be used
No it should be for criminals who have committed sexual, murder or terror offences.
Yes, but only if it is done ethically and safely
Yes, but with restrictions and must be done ethically.
The political themes of 84.7k users that upvoted this question
Join in on more popular conversations.
