Arguments for and against animal research in Psychology
Harlow’s Rhesus Monkey study
(From PYA1 – Attachment)
Arguments FOR animal research
Utilitarian argument - Singer 91975) states that research should only be carried out if it is for the “greater good” and if “happiness for the greatest number” will be the result.
Moral obligation – we have a moral obligation to advance human understanding for human good. According to Gray (1991) “we owe a special duty to members of our own species.” He believes that animal suffering is justifiable if it is for scientific and medical purposes and if it enables us to avoid human suffering
Continuity argument – According to Darwin’s (1859) theory of evolution we have evolved from animals as supported by the similarity in basic physiology and the nervous system of nearly all mammals. The phylogenic tree represents an evolutionary continuum, which means that differences between humans and animals are quantitative, not qualitative. This means that comparisons are valid and so research on animals yields genuine human insights.
Scientific and practical arguments– Animals can be used when human participants would not be legally permitted, such as the study into anxiety involving lesions. Animals have shorter breeding cycles, which enable genetic inheritance to be studied, such as the reactivity of rats to stimuli. Laboratory experiments have a high level of control and so cause and effect can be inferred and the findings are less likely to be biased by participant reactivity.
Research contributions and practical applications– Animal research has given great insights into vital areas of medicine including diseases, drug treatments, organ transplants, surgical techniques and cloning. Most of what we know about the brain, nervous system and sensory systems is based on animal research. Behaviourism is based on animal research, and conditioning techniques have been used successfully in therapeutic settings. Thus, animal research does make an important contribution, although this comes at a high cost in terms of animal suffering.
Safeguards provide protection– It can be argued that the safeguards in place do provide adequate limitations, as the Animals act, the ethical guidelines, and the Home Office restrictions are effective and among the strictest in the world. They ensure that animals are humanely treated and that alternatives are considered. The dramatic reduction in the use of animals in psychological research over the last 15 years is evidence that the safeguards are working.
Cost– benefit analysis – This is a further safeguard that is a legal requirement of the Animals Act. It is used to weigh up whether the ends justify the means at the outset of the research process. Thus, this is a further restraint, which ensures that research must be of value (theoretical and practical applications) if it is to be justified.
Arguments AGAINST animal research
Utilitarian argument and speciesism –Singer (1975) is strongly opposed to any research on animals that could not also be conducted on humans. He believes in the equality of all species and so is against the view that animals should be used because they are more expendable. According to Singer, this is speciesism, which is akin to racism, as human interests are not more important than those of other species and to think so is prejudiced and discriminatory.
Animal rights argument – According to this argument, all animals have rights to be treated with respect and not be harmed. Thus, according to Regan, animal research is not justifiable under any conditions. Making research more humane, using more naturalistic methods, decreasing their number, and using safeguards such as the cost-benefit analysis, do not justify the indefensible.
Moral obligation – The arguments against Gray’s (1991) moral obligation is that this is speciesism; human interests should not be elevated above those of other species. We have a moral obligation to protect other species.
Continuity/discontinuity argument– Another perspective to the continuity argument is that is animals are so closely related and are capable of emotions then using them poses a serious ethical dilemma. Opposing this is the discontinuity argument of humanistic psychologists. According to this, humans are qualitatively different to other species and so extrapolation from animals to humans is an issue. This means that research on animals provides limited insights into human behaviour as findings are not necessarily generalisable.
Scientific arguments – Research on animals is often repetitive and transparent i.e. it addresses problems where the answer is self-evident. The value of such research is further questioned by the scientific weaknesses of the research – research conducted in the laboratory is artificial and lacks mundane realism, and may have limited generalisability to other situations. Extrapolation may also reduce the validity of the research. Generalisations between animals and humans are also guilt of anthromorphism (which is when animals are mistakenly attributed with human qualities).
Criticisms of research contributions- Medical advances have been delayed and confused because results from non-human experiments do not transfer to human patients. Different evolutionary pressures have led to subtle differences in physiology, which means the effects of medical treatment on one species does not predict their effect on another species. The stress caused by the laboratory conditions acts as a confounding variable and so reduces validity.
Criticisms of the safeguards– A key weakness is enforceability, as it may be that unethical research is carried out but just not detected.
Cost-benefit analysis – This may be biased by the value judgements that favour the contribution of the research to society over animals. According to the critics of the pro-animal research lobby, researchers tend to overemphasise the benefits and underemphasise the suffering. Costs and benefits are often difficult to predict at the outset and so judgements may lack accuracy.
