Download Ethical issues – animals

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.