Animal testing. (Please forgive the large set of answers; I want to see correlations between two ranges.)

I checked everything, but the one about not harming animals for any reason. I'm a firm believer that it is best to test things on animals for safety before they are tested on humans. I further believe that the animals should then be killed at the end of the study to avoid any lasting or lingering effects; unless of course the product turns out to be harmless of course. I also agree with Daver that if you worded the cosmetics question differently my answers would also have changed accordingly.

This is too general for me (I'm borderline on the issue, and really need more specifics to make up my mind)... but if I -had- to pick based on just this, probably all of the "life-saving" choices, and none of the rest. Differentiating by type of animal seems rather pointless.

I go back and forth on this issue, and I agree with truss that I'd need more specific information to make a meaningful choice. I am sure that I disagree with cosmetic testing, it's frivolous, painful, and has already been done enough that I don't see why it would need to continue to be done - we have enough cosmetics as it is. Also, I feel less uncomfortable with research that involves killing animals than I do with research that involves torturing animals. I don't think differentiating by type of animal is pointless. I'm sure non-human primates have the capacity for emotional suffering; I doubt that insects do.

good survey. i'm mystified at people that think if an animal is not our species, we can feel free to torture it.

...you forgot testing on humans, which I think would be just fine with consenting adults. (See the story "The Good Rat," by Allen Steele.)

Interestingly, I answered 'yes' to exactly the questions that had 40% or better 'yes' answers; usually on questions like this I don't find that there's a percentage cutoff I agree with. This says to me that animal testing is actually not that complicated an issue.

The effects of chemicals and drugs and other things needs to be tested. Otherwise we wouldnt' be advancing. There really isn't a way to do that sythetically (computers etc, because no computer simulation will mimic life). I didn't choose the cosmetics/household products on anything but bugs. This also doesn't give any thought to non-harmful research. The animals don't have to be harmed, or may not be harmed (other than being in cages in a lab). Then again, I eat meat. I'd kill a rabbit for food (if I needed it), so killing one to save a human seems reasonable.

I'm not sure what "basic research" means. Does this mean training like you did in bio class with the fetal pig, or does it mean actual information-gathering research, or does it mean just poking around to see what happens?

I understand the reality of having to use animals for testing purposes, but it still bothers me. Animals aren't put on earth for our research! I think people should try harder to find a different and/or better way to do research instead of wasting time arguing about why we should/should not use animals for research purposes.

I must admit I have species biases. I just think an insect is not as advanced as a mammal (I don't want to argue about the value of life). I eat fish and wouldn't have a problem eating insects (if that sort of thing was common) but I will not eat other animal life. I even call myself a vegetarian (just because its easier than explaining).

It all depends on *degree*. I worked for biotechs for many, many years and we worked on AIDS, cancer, and other critical "life-threatening diseases". Sure, if we had an artificial body that would give us realistic feedback somehow, we'd use it. But we don't. If we made something that "seemed" to cure cancer but it turns out really had some side effect that killed humans, and we just tried it on humans and killed a bunch of them, the public would be outraged. I doubt anyone *likes* to test on animals. But we all like having cures for diseases!! I know many PETA members that are teenagers and young adults, but every parent I know with a sick child has a different perspective on animal research. I personally would love to start a company that somehow *made* hearts and lungs and other things to test on, so we wouldn't have to hurt animals. But until then, I don't see any other options.

By "basic research" I meant the kind of stuff that I do: scientific research that has no direct relevance to any human problem, but that is intended to reveal paradigms that can later be used to explore more human-related questions. I wanted to separate out cosmetics from other household products, but I worried about having too many answers--I also wanted to separate out rodents/insectivores from other mammals, but bowed to the same concern. I didn't forget testing on humans; that's another question entirely.

I belong to PETA and I don't eat meat ( because I don't like the taste.. not making any kind of stand) but I think that animals can be tested on only if its life saving research that is ABSOLUTELY neccessary and that there is no way around it. Testing animals just for the sake of living tissue for cosemetics and the like is inhumane. I would rather hit a 40 yr old man with my car than a dog/cat.

where are the human options?

If you'd limited the third answer in each series to only cosmetics my answers would have been a bit different. There are a number of "household products" whose use is neither as frivolous nor as optional as cosmetics. By "household products" I'm including things such as soap, OTC pain-killers (not life-saving medicine), preservatives in food, etc.
**Pigeon: Why does the age and sex of the human (that you would hypothetically hit) matter?

Hmmm... again the subjective human point of view... from a higher, objective point of view, it is so moral as testing with humans, but, well, we are humans and have reticence about testing with humans, the same reticence insects can have about testing with insects. In the other hand, if you consider morally acceptable to test on insects why not on dogs or primates? Only bcos you can recognize they are suffering? A bit false attitude....

I think that it is ok to use animal testing only because I realize that there is no other alternative in modeling certain medicines and treatments. I am assuming that all the harm that comes to the creature is due to the substances tested and not due to their care. I have problems with bad care of animals just because they are test subjects. As for cosmetics and household products - there are other alternatives and animals need not be used to test these.

I don't think it is reasonable to test cosmetics on anything but humans. Get volunteers. If you can't, pay people a small amount. If you still can't get enough people, well, I guess your product isn't happening. In general, I have no problems with using animals for research and testing, provided they are well cared for. Treating animals badly "because they're just lab animals" makes me want to cage and mistreat the people who say it "because they are just expendable people".

Some caveats: I interpret "okay" to mean "I don't have any strong negative emotional response to this in theory, though I might be squeamish about it in practice"; I don't have an intellectual position on the subject of animal testing. I'm defining "harm" to exclude simply causing distress or anxiety. I'm assuming you mean "intentionally" and not "there's some possibility of harm but that's not our goal." I assume the research is legitimate, and not of the "let's pull legs off a frog to see what it does" school; if you want to split hairs about what "legitimate" means email me. Having said all that: I checked all but the first and last two.
BTW, why not include "human primates" and "all mammals" as long as you're gotten this far?