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

Yes but not for testing cosmetics and only in circumstances where there are NO other viable options. Welfare of animals must be of paramount importance.

Where there is no alternative and suffering is limited and heavily regulated however I would prefer investment in alternative testing solutions

Define animal. Drosphila are routinely used and few would mind about that. My answer depends on the specific case.

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

Any testing involving animals should be heavily regulated and monitored by a neutral organisation, risk to the animals should be minimised as much as possible; and it should only be allowed for that which is medically necessary.

Yes, but not for cosmetic products and only if there is no alternative option regardless of cost and is conducted ethically and scientifically.

Yes but under strict laws that are monitored to ensure the best welfare and outcome for both the animal and the research

Only in situations where primary testing on humans isn't safe and it's a very important development.

Yes but, human and animal testing should only be allowed for products for their respective species that aren't cosmetic

However the number of animals used has to heavily regulated. As well as the animal used for what type of testing.

Yes, but not for cosmetics and they should pay for any harm caused to animals.

Yes but only on very needed vaccinations and anything medical

Yes for medical testing. But no for cosmetics

As long as the animal isn’t put through pain

Yes for medicine no for cosmetics

No , convicted criminals should be used for this as results would be far more accurate than from animals in cages

Yes but with special consideration given to the animal and a minimising of suffering and the potential for voluntary human subjects

No.Use criminals like premeditated murderers, pedophiles, child and animal abusers if proven to committed the crimes.

Greater scrutiny should be applied to avoid unnecessary suffering/death of animals, although in certain instances it is something I agree is hard to avoid to ensure safe treatment for humans.

Only if there is extremely strict regulations and legislation to protect the rights of the animal, and only use them for projects with high medical value and not cosmetics

I think animals should not be used interesting however, I would rather if the product was harmful that an animal died than a human

Only in special circumstances.. definitely not for cosmetics

Test it on drug dealers and murderers!

Conditions should be met to ensure the animals are used in a way that is humane.

As long as it doesn't harm or hurt the animal

In rare, mostly non harmful cases

yes,. as long as it doesn't hurt them

No opinion for or against

Yes but only for potential benefits to humans and not radiation/chemo and other potential dangerous experiments.

no test on pedophiles instead

Yes as it something that isn't intend to hurt them

Yes as long as they are not endangered

Yes, as it is not something that will hurt them

Yes, as it is not something that doesn't hurt them

Only if it is really necessary

only in extreme conditions

vaccines, medical devices on animals with similar body systems to humans.

Painless and only for medical purposes

No and jail anyone who does.

yes as long as the public dont see them die

no, evolve technology for testing experiments.

Yes, as long as it is not done in a cruel, harmful manner.

No, Animals are biologically different from human beings. They should test on volunteers and criminals with serious offences like murder, etc

no you wont be touching my animals

Alternatives should always be sought. Animal testing should be allowed only as a last resort for medical needs. No testing for non-vital reasons such as cosmetics etc should be allowed.

No they should use prisoners facing death row

No they should test on prisoners who have done horrible crimes like murder rape and cannibalism

only when absolutely necessary (see covid vaccine)

do human testing, people will sign up and sign papers before. or do it on extremely evil criminals.

Yes but only for live saving experimental medication

Medicines and cosmetics can't both be on the same list.

Only for medical procedures nor cosmetics

Yes, except cosmetics, only if there is no alternative and there is justification for the study.

As long as it does not harm them

Test the prison population, ie murderers.

test it on bad criminals

No test on more reliable and humane ways

they should consider doing more testing first.

Yes, but only in circumstances where it is absolutely essential to verifying the safety and quality of the product.

Medical yes. Cosmetic - no

If its something urgent like a vaccine then yes, but nothing else.

no 100% not because animals are not just to be used to test our products if you really want to use the product you can use it your self and risk it your self because thats not what anamals are bread for

Only if it is essential, a last resort - but no to testing for cosmetics

Only when absolutely necessary and no other alternatives. Last resort.

no definitely not

No, researchers should be imprisoned if they test on animals

No, it should be considered a crime

no, use rapists instead

Only if there is no alternative, and not at all for cosmetics

Researchers must only use animals when it is necessary and ultimately exhausting all avenues. Animals must be treated as humanly as possible and all care administered when testing new drugs particularly with vaccines.

Yes, but only if it can be guaranteed that the animals used are in no physical or long-lasting danger

Not primates

On a product by product basis

Yes, but only in situations where there is no other alternative and the drugs, vaccines, medical devices or cosmetics are essential research to preserve human life. The animals should also be kept in line with research animal welfare.

it depends, if they HAVE to, then sure if not then no

Tissue cultures can be used but is not always developed enough so more funding should be sent into this way to prevent animal testing. Maybe only used in certain stages

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

Use paedophiles instead

Yes, however not for cosmetics and with strict regulation

Yes, but use in vitro and cell culture methods of testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics as far as possible

Yes, if there is no alternative. However, no animal testing should be allowed for cosmetics or non essential testing

Yes, but not for cosmetics and only while there are not other viable animal friendly alternatives.

Ban testing on animals for cosmetics and focus on development of animal free testing for drugs and medical purposes

yes, but only if it won't harm the animals

They should use paedophiles and other people like that instead

Only when absolutely necessary for the health of humans

Range Rover drivers should replace the animals

Yes as long as it is necessary to test on animals. If cell lines can be used then use them

Yes but only if it wouldn't cause lasting damage or pain

Final trials have to be used on some form of human-resembling species to confirm legitimacy. Though, luxury substances (cosmetics) should not be allowed.

Experiments should only be carried out on certain animals, eg, rats, but not on others, eg, monkeys and rabbits.

yes as long as the animals of ethically treated

Certain humane product testing

Synthetic skin

Yes, but absolutely not for cosmetics and as little as possible. I think we know a lot about disease prevention and should work on implementing that knowledge more than animal testing.

Paedophiles and people like Ted Bundy should be used instead :)