There are a significant number of psychological experiments that over time have used animals as a means of testing various hypotheses, for example psychologists Gardner and Gardner who attempted to teach Washoe, a chimpanzee, American Sigh Language (ASL). This study highlights many ethical issues in the use of non-human animals for psychological research. The relevance of this study is questionable in comparison not justifying the experiment. However other animal experiments in psychology have been invaluable in their contribution to society in demonstrating certain theories. For example Skinner famously used rats to highlight operant conditioning, a technique that is now incorporated into everyday tasks such as schooling and parenting through negative and positive reinforcement.
Many safeguards exist to assure that laboratory animals receive humane and ethical treatment. One of the most significant are the guidelines set by the British Psychological Society (BPS). BPS had its first review of such legislation in 1986, named The Animals Act 1686, 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. Guidelines such as no endangered animals should be avoided, unless part of a conservation programme, and that minimum numbers of animals are 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, like a cost benefit analysis. Similarly Bateson’s decision cube highlights three main areas which determine weather the study is justifiable. The cube has three axes measuring animal suffering, certainty of benefit and quality of research. If the later two are high and animal suffering is low then it is seen that the research should proceed. The problem with this method however is that they are subjective measures and therefore may be biased.
Despite these safeguards many argue, and feel very strongly, that animals should be treated in exactly the same way as human beings and that they should have equal rights. It is unjustifiable and unethical to use non-human animals in psychological testing for the personal gain of humans. What gives humans the right to rank themselves higher than other species, and further more violate and potentially end their lives in the name of psychology; Singer classified this as ‘speciesism’, specie discrimination. Many ethical and religious groups fight on behalf of these misused animals as the animals themselves don’t have a means of communication with humans, therefore unable to provide consent to testing. Although various ethical guidelines are now in order to safeguard these animals many still argue that the involvement of animals at any level should be band.
Various alternatives to research with animals have been proposed, including the use of plants and tissue cultures and the use of computer simulations. In fact, all who do research with animals are required, legally and ethically, to consider the possibility of using alternatives to nonhuman animals. However, alternatives are often unavailable or inadequate. Plants lack a nervous system and therefore cannot be used to learn about psychological phenomena. Tissue cultures cannot develop depression, alcoholism, autism or other psychologically relevant problems.
Overall it is evident that despite various pressure groups fighting against the use of animals in psychological research, many safeguards are in place to justify tests and protect animals. This is a fair compromise as animal testing continues to gain additional information to the field of psychology that would be unable to do so using human participants.
