Describe and evaluate arguments for and against the use of non-human animals in psychological research.

Authors Avatar

Describe and evaluate arguments for and against the use of non-human animals in psychological research.

Non-human animals have been used in psychological research for hundreds of years. With the use of these animals, however, comes the question: “How can on justify the use of non-human animals, who cannot give informed consent, in tests and trials that could cause them both physical and psychological harm?”

It is difficult to defend the use of animals in psychological research. The two main sides to the argument take highly differing views. The animal rights movement takes up the position: “No matter the potential harm to mankind, it is ethically wrong to use animals in research.” The other side of the argument is held in the utilitarian view that the cost of the research in suffering should be balanced against the benefit to mankind, and that animal research can be justified on that basis.

Join now!

The animal rights argument is heavily based on ethical issues. In his work, Peter Singer described the use of animals in research as a form of discrimination that he termed ‘speciesism’, and in the same way that experiments are not done on old people because it would be called ageism, experiments cannot be carried out on animals without being hopelessly hypocritical.

Certainly, looking at an experiment such as Harlow’s Monkeys, it is easy to see how the animal rights argument could be applied. Firstly, it is hardly fair to separate a mother and baby at birth in any species, and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay