Do you agree with animal testing?

Question

School survey, yes or no thanks!

Answer 1

Depends what it's for. If you're talking about e.g. ecological research where bacteria/plankton/fish/small animals get "homogenised" (mashed up!) for analysis of their genes/ biochemistry/pathologies, then I absolutely agree with that, as the information can be used to benefit the planetary environment in the long term.

If you're talking about animal testing solely for human benefit, then that basically boils down to medical, pharmaceutical or cosmetic research, in which case I would say:

Medical: agree. Treatments/therapies/surgical techniques need to be tested

Pharmaceutical: usually agree. Drugs/medicines should be screened for safety prior to human trials (but do we really need yet another brand of painkiller?)

Cosmetic: disagree. Cosmetics are not essential to good health, and there are already plenty of products on the market (including many non-animal-tested brands)

Answer 2

Yes or no! You can't break down such a complex issue into one word! You go back to school and tell you teacher to stop teaching you such arbitrary statistical analysis.

A more constructive question would be: 'Under what conditions do you consider animal testing to be appropriate?' This would yield results from the animal rights nutjobs who would say never, to the neonazis who say all the time.

Obviously nobody would be in favour of mass trials on humans of a substance that has never been tested, but the results gained from animal testing are not neccessarily indicitave of the reactions by humans.

In short, don't try to simplify complex issues into a soundbyte.

Answer 3

Yes, even tough it usually results in deformalities as a result of improper design and makeup of the product. Which in cases such as cosmetics usually causes burns and destroys the animals flesh before become safe for commercial sale. But I think animal testing is absolutly ok, without it many of the untested products would go on to hurt humans. Even though humans are just another type of animal you just have to ask yourself which one would you rather risk an "animal" live or a human's life (which could be your parent, child, friend or loved one).

If there was no animal testing PETA would then start complaining how all these new products are hurting/scarring/killing the consumers who buy them. Then they would beg for the animals testing to come back.

So i guess it all depends on how you feel what type of animal would you want to test the products on chicken, bunnies, and monkeys or would you rather have it be our species, the human race: your mother, father, child, or friend?

Answer 4

Typical school survey, where its all black or white. I'm afraid that for most people there is no "Yes" or "No". For example, I doubt there would be many people that would agree with a cat's eyes being burnt out to test a new perfume, but I would say most people would accept well regulated testing on rats to help prevent terminal diseases in humans.

And I'm sure most people draw their line somewhere between the two, apart from the rabid activists.

Answer 5

Yes

Answer 6

Yes. Its a neccessary evil as things stand. It's easy to say no until you or your family require life saving drugs that were only developed as a result of animal testing- (and no they can't use alternatives). Farming practises are far more cruel and yet we don't need to eat animals to survive!
Would love to hear what these alternatives to animal testing are and a coherent research strategy.

Answer 7

Yes if you need a 100% answer. I believe it should be avoided as much as possible, but researching new drugs, etc. I think sometimes it has to be done. It's creepy that some would suggest human testing over animal testing.

Answer 8

Yes I do, I'm alive as a result of research which involved other species. I disagree with animal testing for cosmetics.

Answer 9

Yes, but you shouldn't do any more than multiple choice questions on them, except perhaps with Primates, as they have an opposable thumb so they can hold the pen right....hang on, you don't mean poisoning and vivisecting animals - that would be a no.

Answer 10

Yes.