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.
Show more types:
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Constituency:
@9N3TSRRLiberal Democrat10mos10MO
Only in situations where primary testing on humans isn't safe and it's a very important development.
@9KQGZC21yr1Y
However the number of animals used has to heavily regulated. As well as the animal used for what type of testing.
@9P5K8D6Liberal Democrat10mos10MO
Yes but with special consideration given to the animal and a minimising of suffering and the potential for voluntary human subjects
@8YNVSC33yrs3Y
only in extreme conditions
@8XXVQRR3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as it is not done in a cruel, harmful manner.
No they should test on prisoners who have done horrible crimes like murder rape and cannibalism
@8WCB6FL4yrs4Y
Yes but only for live saving experimental medication
@8TGQ3XN4yrs4Y
No test on more reliable and humane ways
Medical yes. Cosmetic - no
@8T8643M4yrs4Y
Only when absolutely necessary and no other alternatives. Last resort.
@8SMDGX94yrs4Y
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
@8S77MMLConservative4yrs4Y
yes, but only if it won't harm the animals
@8RS49S34yrs4Y
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.
@8QPVY8H4yrs4Y
No, we should use humans who have committed terrible crimes and have no chance of rehabilitation for this.
@8QBC3TB4yrs4Y
Yes if there is no animal cruelty involved.
@8Q4HVHD4yrs4Y
Yes in certain circumstances
It depends on the importance of the item being tested
@9CHJ2N62yrs2Y
No use humans that have committed horrible crimes
@993S7BG2yrs2Y
Yes, but in a humane practice what occurs in sterile and comfortable conditions and will not cause extreme or long-lasting harm to the animals involved.
@98XWSDV2yrs2Y
Only if there is millions of the animals already
@98XWRPW2yrs2Y
Absolutely not never ever ever!
@96RLNR92yrs2Y
Yes, but only if essential and with strict regulations on prevention of suffering to the animal, and with incentives for human testing instead. No animals should be used for testing cosmetics.
@8SNB9KS4yrs4Y
Only where this is no possible alternative - and the bar for proof of that has to be very high
@8RGS8PG4yrs4Y
Yes but only for vermin and if they are not harmed.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
