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

if there's an alternative, such as cells in a petri-dish, and a live animal isn't required, then it is best to not use animals, but if necessary, then it is best to allow scientists to use animals

I don’t really have an opinion on this

Yes, so long as it does not harm the animal. Cosmetics are a no though.

Yes, not for cosmetics, but for medical purposes if no alternative exists.

I feel we cannot not use animals for medical purposes… as harsh as it sounds. This question is a very sensitive one for sure.

Yes, but with heavy ethical oversight

New products should be tested on people serving life sentences in prison, who consent to it.

as long as it won't harm the animanls and not for cosmetics

Depends on the use of the products and how important or its value is

Only if there aren't enough people to volunteer themselves and surely not for cosmetics

Imagine if animal testing had never been allowed; in what ways do you think modern medicine might be different?

If you had to choose between a tested and an untested medicine in a critical situation, knowing the tested one involved animal testing, which would you choose and why?

How do you feel about using animals for testing the products you use daily?

Have you ever used a medical treatment and later found out it was tested on animals; what was your reaction?

What are your thoughts on the balance between human health benefits and the welfare of animals in medical research?

If there was an equally effective alternative to animal testing, would you support a complete switch and why?

Have you or someone you know ever benefited from a medical treatment developed through animal testing?

Yes, but strictly rodents

As long as it’s not inhumane

Yes, but only after testing on themselves first.

No, and it should have a consequence (jail)

No, animals should be a beautiful part of nature, not a science experiment that only benefits humans.

as long as they are not harmed

Yes and allow human testing

Use humans instead.

Yes, but try the drugs on cell lines instead of live animals to see the affects on the cells themselves.

No. Gross.

No, use voluntary humans.

As long as the animals do not get harmed long term. There should always be a limit.

Reasonable, mostly non-invasive & only with clearly defined protocols to protect human life. Should be minimized to greatest extent possible to protect animals.

Yes, but not for cosmetics and try to minimize the death/damage to the animal as much as possible

Yes, but never for cosmetics and only in other instances when there are no other possible avenues for testing

No, we should only allow human volunteers.

Yes for safety of drugs, caccines & medical devices. Not for cosmetics nor cosmetic surgeries.

It depends if the animal can feel the pain or be killed in the process, If the animal dies will it be a quick death. However, animals should never be tested with cosmetics.

It depends if the animal can feel the pain or be killed in the process however animals should never be tested with cosmetics.

Yes, but an animal safety board should be implemented to oversee the treatment of the animals during testing

depends on the animal in question

It depends on the animal, the risks of the product being faulty, etc.

No, that's mean.

No, this is animal cruelty and it shouldn't be towards others living things just because they can't do anything about it.

No test on convicted murders

No test on death row inmates

No test on violent prisoners instead

No test on violent life sentenced prisoners instead

Depends on the purpose, but do develop and encourage more alternatives such as computer simulation

Yes, as long as it is done in a safe way that does not harm the animal

Yes but without harming the animal.

Yes, as long as it's humane

only on some kinds/breeds of animals

No, I believe this puts animals in too much risk and I think instead we should do testing on people who volunteer if they wish to help in some way with the development of vaccines since people can at least have a choice.

Yes, but only things like rats and stuff

yes, but only certain animals

Not for cosmetics, and ensure that the animals are treated ethically.

Yes, only if they follow APA guidelines of ethical conduct.

no because we need animals or the natural and if they get killed then what are we gonna do and animals have completely different dna so it would not help us at all

No, unless it's absolutely necessary and there are no other options for testing

No because it might work on a animal but it could be harmful to humans.

Yes, but the animals should be treated ethically

Yes, but only on non-intelligent animals

Yes, but only until sufficient models have been established and tested. Increase the funding for the research into these models.

Yes, if the animals are collected sustainably.

As long as they are not harming the animal

No, animals have the God-given right to live their lives to the fullest

yes, but not with any domesticated species

Yes, but not for the cosmetics, and not excessively

Yes, as long as it does not harm the animal and is strictly regulated

Yes, but only less important animals.

Yes, but small easily reproducible animals

Yes, with riggorous oversight to maintain fair treatment for the animals in these situations.

Animal testing should gradually be replaced with alternatives such as organ-on-a-chip technology

yes, but only if one, it has a low risk of greatly harming the animal, and two, the medical device/vaccine will save millions of lives, wipe out a virus, and/or is groundbreaking. ban cosmetic testing on animals altogether.

Yes, but not for cosmetics and only on mice or various rodent types of animal species

Yes, but not for cosmetics and only on mice or rodent animal species

no, but allow it if one, it has a low risk of greatly harming the animal, and two, the medical device/vaccine will save millions of lives, wipe out a virus, and/or is groundbreaking. ban cosmetic testing on animals altogether.

Yes, but only on mice or rodent animal species and not for cosmetics

Animals should not be the first option, but if it is the only option than possibly.

No, use people from death row to test for products.

Yes, in non-harmful ways.

No, it should be tested on humans that can give consent and understand the dangers

Yes, but for vaccines and medical devices

Depends on how dangerous a procedure is.

No, testing should be done on volunteers, and/or violent offenders on death row, pedophiles, and rapists.

No, because every animal, human included, have different reactions to the same drug or vaccine.

No, Not for testing that is inhumane.

Yes, as long as the treatments aren't very likely to harm them.

As long as it is not painful

No- prisoners should elect to be able to par take in this testing rather than animals if they are on death row- joining this program would halt death row.

only on rats or mice

Only after in vitro trials, to filter out more harmful effects.

Yes, but with greater oversight and regulation

This should only be allowed of the animal in question is not an endangered species and if the product being tested is not highly dangerous to the health of the animal.

No, this is animal cruelty. Should be punishable by death

Depends on the scenario; animal welfare must be strongly considered

Yes but ensure that animals will not be injured in the process.

No, test them on death row inmates instead.

We should use human prisoners instead

Yes, including cosmetics, because had testing been done, it could have prevented the use of cosmetics that have now been proven to be harmful. Thus, its use in cosmetics is medical.

yes as they need to