non-human animals controversy Flashcards
introduction
The use of non-human animals in psychological research is a contentious issue, with the American Psychological Association stating that approximately 7%-8% of studies involve animals, predominantly rodents and birds. Therefore, these psychologists have to weigh up the benefits for society against the potential harm or pain that the animals might feel. Many different areas in psychology have used animal studies for example; Jouvet (1967) studying sleep deprivation using cats, Teitelbaum et al’s (1954) study on rats’ eating behaviours and Blakemore and Cooper (1970) using kittens to investigate the effect of the environment on perception. Animal research has also significantly advanced understanding in areas like learning, perception, and neurobiology. However, ethical concerns about animal welfare continue to spark debate.
BPS point (para 1)
The British Psychological Society (BPS) provides strict ethical guidelines for using non-human animals. Researchers must adhere to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, ensuring that the research is justified by the potential benefits and that suffering is minimised. The three R’s; Reduction, Replacement, and Refinement are fundamental principles in animal research. Reduction involves minimising the number of animals used, Replacement encourages alternative methods where possible, and Refinement focuses on reducing animal suffering and enhancing welfare.These guidelines ensure that animal research is conducted ethically, suggesting that the use of non-human animals is permissible under strict conditions. For example, Blakemore and Cooper’s (1970) study on kittens has contributed to understanding neuroplasticity, information that could not be ethically obtained from human infants. This supports the argument that animal use is sometimes necessary. However, technological alternatives, like computer modeling and in vitro methods, challenge the unavoidability of animal research by offering potential replacements. Therefore, while BPS guidelines ethically justify animal use in specific contexts, they also promote minimising it, indicating that animal use is sometimes necessary but not inherently unavoidable.
comparative psychology point (para 3)
Comparative psychology relies on cross-species comparisons to understand behaviour and cognition, assuming evolutionary connection/similarities between humans and animals. Classic studies, such as Pavlov’s conditioning experiments with dogs and Skinner’s operant conditioning with rats, provided basic but fundamental insights into learning that apply to human behaviour. Harlow’s (1959) study on infant rhesus monkeys, which demonstrated the importance of comfort in attachment, significantly influenced our understanding of human child development.The study revealed that infant monkeys preferred a soft cloth surrogate mother over a wire mother that provided food, highlighting the emotional needs of infants and that food doesnt equal love. This finding was influential in shifting childcare practices towards emphasising emotional bonding and security. Conducting such a study on human infants would have been ethically impossible, supporting the argument that animal research is sometimes necessary for psychological advancement. However, the validity of generalising findings from animals to humans is limited by qualitative differences in cognition and culture. For instance, Lorenz’s (1935) imprinting in geese does not fully translate to human attachment behaviours, highlighting species specific limitations. Although comparative psychology shows the value of animal studies, the limitations of cross-species generalisation suggest that human-specific methods could reduce reliance on animals. This indicates that animal use is beneficial but not always unavoidable, as alternatives and careful interpretation can reduce dependence on animals.
AAT point (para 4)
Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) demonstrates the therapeutic value of non-human animals in psychology, effectively alleviating emotional issues such as anxiety and depression, as shown by Friedman and Heesook Son (2009). AAT is particularly beneficial for individuals with developmental disorders, suggesting that animals provide unique therapeutic advantages that are sometimes necessary. However, Anestis et al. (2014) criticized AAT research for methodological flaws, including small sample sizes and lack of control groups, raising questions about the validity of its findings. Additionally, ethical concerns arise regarding the welfare of therapy animals, who may experience stress or discomfort. This creates a dilemma: while animals offer therapeutic benefits that are difficult to replicate through human interaction or technology, the ethical implications challenge the necessity of their use. Therefore, although AAT shows contexts where animal use is beneficial, methodological limitations and ethical concerns indicate that it is not universally unavoidable. This suggests that while animals are valuable therapeutic tools, advancements in alternative therapies and research methods could reduce dependency on them.
speciesism (para 5)
Speciesism is the belief that human interests are superior to those of non-human animals, justifying the use of animals in research. Singer (1975) argued from a utilitarian viewpoint that the societal benefits of animal research justify its use, whereas Regan (1984) maintained that animals have inherent rights, opposing any form of research on ethical grounds. Gray (1991) offered a balanced view, suggesting humans have a special duty of care without equating speciesism to racism. This ethical debate influences the argument about the unavoidability of using non-human animals in psychology. Utilitarian perspectives support animal use when it benefits society, as seen in research that led to effective treatments for neurodegenerative diseases. For example,researchers at the MRC Toxicology unit at the university of leicester have developed a genetically modified strain of mice to model human neurodegenerative disease which has led to the identification of an orally administered drug compound that can correct the disease pathway and prevent neurodegeneration. However, rights-based perspectives challenge this view, arguing that animals’ intrinsic value makes their use unethical, regardless of potential benefits. This shows that ethical considerations dictate the necessity of animal use, suggesting that it is contextually justified rather than universally unavoidable.
conclusion
In conclusion, the unavoidability of using non-human animals in psychology depends on ethical considerations, research needs, and available alternatives. Animal research has undeniably contributed to psychological advancements and therapeutic applications, but ethical guidelines and technological alternatives challenge its necessity. Comparative psychology shows the value of cross-species studies, though limitations in generalising to humans suggest that human-specific methods could reduce reliance on animals. The ethical debate on speciesism further illustrates that the perceived necessity of animal use depends on utilitarian vs rights-based perspectives. Overall, while non-human animal use is sometimes necessary for psychological progress, it is not universally unavoidable. Ongoing advancements in research methodologies and ethical considerations are essential for minimising animal use in psychology.
