I personally think it's great. But after writing an essay about it for an exam then talking to the rest of the year I learned that other people think differently.

I've spent a good proportion of my education covering that topic, and the only thing about it I'm against is when stupid things are being tested like Lipstick and make-up etc.

Humans are animals

I personally don't mind, unless they involve cruel and/or degrading test

I have nothing against it as long as animals aren't being harmed.

Like we don't know?

I personally think it's better that human testing.

On a related topic, apparently people can become professional human guinea pigs who are forced through a lot of the same experiments animals are. It pays okay, but there's not many benefits.

I'm pretty much neutral to it.
My heart says NO in big fat letters, but well..

The thing is, that it is of course not fun for an animal, if stuff is tested on it.
But the other thing is, that by such tests, things are found out that help people.
If there was an alternative without going for any life forms, I'd say go for it. But I'm afraid, there isn't =(

^ This is for scientific relevant testing. I'm totally against testing make-up on animals, since looking good doesn't serve mankind anything.

EDIT: However, I find it shocking how one can go like "It's GREAT"... >_>

This post has been edited by Guinea on Jun 14 2007, 08:38 AM

I don't give a **** about the animals. Test away!

I can only think of growing human skin and organs for use in testing as a viable alternative.

Animal testing has brought about lots of cures in cancers and other horrible diseases. So in that way I support it, and I do eat animals, many of whom probably spent their lives in horrid conditions (think of battery farms).

My other opinion is that the animals don't get any choice in the matter, where human testers do. A human can describe the pain it is in, where as an animal may suffer without assistance, until it is deemed of no further use.

My conclusion is that is it better that 300 rabbits die in testing (which is only for a fixed period) than millions over the years of cancer (I recently heard of the horrible effect it had on one human being). Alternatives should be used where available.

The point is, would you rather have some tests done on a human or animal when they could have bad side effects?

Computer simulation


Although I don't think it's advanced far enough yet to do an accurate representation.

as long as the animal isn't killed or hurt or their lifespan altered drastically because of it, it isn't that much of a problem to me. Then again I suppose sometimes you don't know what the results of the testing are going to be and the death of the animal because of it could be unpredictable..


so I don't know, if someone asked me about it in person I'd say I was neutral to not stir up too much trouble because I don't feel too strongly either way

I'm neutral. Like everyone else.

Depends on what is testing.

They test on ducks too. Ducks could even die because of testing. Anyway, I'm against it.