Use of non-human animals in psychological research.
USE OF NON-HUMAN ANIMALS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
a) Outline ways in which the welfare of non-human animals has been protected in psychological research
The welfare of non-human animals has been protected in psychological research in various ways. Probably, most significant are the Guidelines for the use of animals composed by the British Psychological Society (BPS). BPS had its first review of such legislation in 1986 for the first time in over a hundred years. It is the duty of all animal researchers to be familiar with the most recent legislation and abide by it.
Within these guidelines, BPS covers many essential topics within the area of animal research which try to ensure a certain degree of protection of the non-human animals involved. Ethical issues are taken into consideration by stating that if it is necessary that animals should be confined/stressed in anyway the experimenter must ensure that the means justify the ends. It is also advised that the number of animals used should be kept to a minimum, and experimenters should have thorough knowledge of experimental design to ensure this.
Most importantly, animals that are used for research should be treated with respect and researchers have an 'obligation to avoid, or at least minimise discomfort to all living animals'. By this BPS is referring to living conditions, feeding, surgery and euthanasia. Concerning these topics, BPS states that the social habits of each individual species should be taken into consideration to provide adequate housing for the animals and companionship if suitable. The BPS guidelines also maintain that if the researcher is in any doubt about an animal's condition during research, advice of an expert should be sought, i.e. a veterinary surgeon who has nothing to be gained from the research.
Moreover, the welfare of animals in research has been protected by the Scientific Procedures Act (1986). This act requires that animal procedures should only take place in appropriate laboratories with suitable animal accommodation, veterinary facilities and have gained a certificate of designation. Procedures must be part of approved research/testing programme with a project license and carried out by people with sufficient training. Such licences will only be granted if certain standards are met, e.g. Potential results justify means, minimum number of animals used and research cannot be done using non-human methods.
Furthermore, the British Association for the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Moreover, the welfare of animals in research has been protected by the Scientific Procedures Act (1986). This act requires that animal procedures should only take place in appropriate laboratories with suitable animal accommodation, veterinary facilities and have gained a certificate of designation. Procedures must be part of approved research/testing programme with a project license and carried out by people with sufficient training. Such licences will only be granted if certain standards are met, e.g. Potential results justify means, minimum number of animals used and research cannot be done using non-human methods.
Furthermore, the British Association for the Advancement of Science produced a Declaration on Animals in Medical Research (1990), commonly known as the 'Three R's'. These are 'reduction', 'replacement' and 'refinement'. Reduction refers to using methods that obtain same amount of information form fewer animals or more information from same amount of animals, i.e. improved experimental design as mentioned in the BPS guidelines. Replacement, which has advanced the least, refers to using alternative methods for research such as brain imaging and scanning procedures (e.g. MRI and PET scans) in humans; use of computer simulations and mathematical modelling of human behaviour. Refinement refers to using procedures that inflict minimum stress and enhance animal wellbeing.
Finally, another method of protection of non-human animals used in research is Bateson's Decision Cube (1986). This is a cube designed for deciding whether a research project should proceed or not. It is based on three factors, 'quality of research', 'degree of animal suffering' and 'certainty of benefit'. Therefore most obvious case where animal research could be accepted would be where there is negligible animal suffering, high quality of research and benefit is certain. However if the opposite were to occur, i.e. great suffering to animal, etc. then there would be a strong case against the research proceeding.
b) Evaluate the use of non-human animals in psychological research in the terms of the arguments for and against such research.
The fact that non-human animal research in psychology involved the use of almost 40,000 animals in Britain last year is evidence that there must be a strong case for such research. The following is several arguments for animal research and counter arguments that oppose such research.
Firstly, it is without doubt that animal research has made an important contribution to advances in psychology that have brought major improvements to health and wellbeing in humans. However one often fails to recognise that such contributions have been at the great expense of animal life and immense animal suffering. However it could be argued that by using cost-benefit analysis, we can predict whether the means justify the ends, i.e. it is worth sacrificing animal life for the progression and advances in science. On the other hand though, cost-benefit is at best an estimate and one can never be truly certain to the effects/benefits prior to the study. More objective though is the problem that findings obtained from research carried out on animals are often not applicable to humans anyway due to our vast differences in physiology, etc.
Secondly, as a case for animal research it can be argued that 'rights' arise as the result of implicit contracts between members of society and imply duties. Animals have no such responsibilities and cannot reciprocate and therefore have no rights. Therefore without rights they are on earth for the use of man to do what he wants with them. Although by arguing about 'rights' we are stepping on difficult ground because someone arguing against animal research could easily say that infants and the mentally ill are unable to fulfil their obligations to society, so should they be denied their rights too? Of course they should not be, however this highlights how 'rights' is not a strong argument to support non-human animal research. Also, it could be said that animals have rights by virtue of their inherent value, i.e. the right to be respected and not harmed. It would seem that science treats animals as renewable sources and not as living organisms of value.
Thirdly, it can be reasoned that evolution has placed human beings on top of the phylogenetic tree and therefore it is only natural for man to make use of the 'lower' species for our own ends, i.e. we are morally obliged to help humans by animal suffering. On the contrary though, philosopher David Hume said, 'what is, cannot dictate what ought to be'. By this he means that Natural History may have provided us with understanding of why our moral have evolved but we can transcend our nature, i.e. by not using other species in research may be seen as the next step in evolution.
Also, some people can argue that less invasive procedures for the animals have been developed and are being used, therefore minimising animal suffering and therefore serves as moral justification for animal research. However this does not explain why thousands of animals every year go through unnecessary and inhumane torture and suffering. Secondly, if researchers were banned from using non-human animals in research, they would be forced to develop new techniques, e.g. increased use of CAT, PET and MRI scans and other modern approaches providing real alternatives.
Finally, those who are for the use of animal research can argue that there are strict laws and codes of conduct, e.g. BPS guidelines that protect animals in research. However a majority of ethical guidelines are based on 'cost-benefit' analysis where the recipients of costs (i.e. animals) and the benefits (i.e. humans) tend to be very different. Such guidelines often ignore the substantive rights of animals in favour of practical and utilitarian considerations.
