CONTROVERSY: NON-HUMAN ANIMALS Flashcards
What are the 5 arguments
- universal behaviours
- generalisation
- Speciesism
- Ethical studies
- BPS guidelines
Introduction
The use of non-human animal research in psychology has been controversial. Whilst utilitarian psychologists that the use of such research is beneficial despite its unethical aspects, other psychologists such as absolute psychologist believe that animal behaviour cannot be related to humans and that it is completely unethical to conduct such research.
Universal behaviour
One argument that can be made, is that the use of non-human research is useful in helping us understand universal behaviours. Key examples include Pavlov’s dog and Skinner’s rats. For example, in Pavlov’s research he found that the dog would begin to salivate when Pavlov rang the bell as the dog was conditioned to understand that the bell meant it was time for food. Skinner’s rat research produced similar results. Therefore, both of these researchers found groundbreaking discoveries about how learning can occur through classical and operant conditioning. This research was then further supported by Watson and Rayer’s research into little Albert. This research proved that humans (like little Albert) can be conditioned into having a fear response, therefore supporting the idea the humans and animals share universal behaviours. This evidence would then be used to argue that research on animals should continue as it can help uncover more about specific behaviours.
Generalisation
However opposing this view, it can be argued that the use of non-human animals in researcher is extremely problematic due to strong exploitation issues. Animals and Humans are mostly different from the biological aspect to how we live and behave. Therefore, it is arguably not logical to generalise animal behaviours to humans as it can affect conclusions. For example, in Harlow’s monkey research he found that the monkey chose the comfort of the clothed monkey over the monkey with milk, therefore Harlow concluded that human babies favour the comfort of their mothers compared to food. However, this is not justifiable as Harlow’s research was on isolated monkeys, this means that his research has low external validity as it is difficult to generalise his conclusions to humans as he used monkey’s. Therefore, it can be seen as problematic to generalise humans and animals together as convulsions maybe inaccurate.
Speciesism
To further oppose the argument that non-human animals are useful, it can be argued that the use of non-human animals is controversial based on speciesism. Speciesism is the assumption that humans have superiority over animals leading to animal exploitation. Therefore, an absolute psychologist would believe that no non-human animals should be used in psychology as it is discriminatory to risk harm to animals in order to avoid harm to humans. Absolute psychologists would agree with the view of Peter singer who argued that discrimination on the basis of membership of a species is no different from racial and gender discrimination. Therefore, using their beliefs, it can be argued that non-human research in psychology is unacceptable. However, this view would be opposed by utilitarian psychologists who believe that animal research is justified if it is beneficial to the greater good of society. For example, if research killed 10 cats but in this a cure for cancer was found then the research is justified in views of utilitarian psychologists, as those 10 cats died, this research could save millions of lives across the globe. This shows how animal research can have benefits on wider society therefore it is certainly useful, however the moral cost that have to be considered make research decisions very difficult from an absolutist’s perspective.
Ethical studies
Despite this, there has been non-human animal research that has been produced that posed little to no harm for the animals. For example, Daniel Fossey studied gorillas for 10 years, observing them in their natural habitat while doing his readership Fossey did not directly interfere with the Gorillas. This suggests that research on non-human animals can be conducted without risk of being problematic. Counter to this however, some psychologists would argue that interference in research is guaranteed. For example, it is likely that the Gorillas knew Fossey was watching them, therefore they may have shown demand characteristics meaning that they were mostly not behaving naturally affecting findings and conclusions. This, therefore, shows that there is a range of negative implications that comes with animal studies other than ethics which would argue against the use of animals. Nevertheless, Fossey’s research still showed that non-human animal research can still be conducted ethically.
BPS Guidelines
Lastly, the BPS have produced guidelines that cover the ethics of using non-human animals in research, to reduce problems. For example, BPS guidelines believe that as long as the animal is proper taken care of this includes being well fed and treated throughout the study, then it is ethically acceptable if the guidelines are adhered to by the researcher. However, some researchers may ignore or or work around these guidelines meaning that the animals in this study are put at risk of unethical conduct such as a high risk of death. Therefore, despite the BPS guidelines being in place, some researchers may still abuse their powers putting non-human animals at risk.
Conclusion
To conclude, research on non-human animals is useful as it gives us useful insights into universal behaviours. However, from the perspective of an absolute psychologist, it is not morally correct to test on non-human animals, furthermore speciesism plays a huge role in the ethics of testing on non-human animals which can lead to unethical conduct by the researcher and abuse of power.
