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 it would not happen for the sake of research in humans, so how can it be justified simply because the animal can’t talk? And secondly, what exactly was the benefit to humankind from this experiment? What Harlow found was that nurture seemed to be more important that nature, and that baby monkeys that had had no comfort for ninety days suffered irreversible psychological damage. This was translated on to human children that six months was the limit for comfort deprivation.
Although Harlow’s Monkeys experiment produced a basically useful result, a case study, 44 Juvenile Thieves, was able to procure similar findings, but simply by looking at past human behaviour. Admittedly case studies are narrow, and the findings somewhat dependent on the researcher maintaining a standard, but they do not require the suffering of non-human animals.
On the other side of the argument, the utilitarian argument is firmly fixed in a scientific base. The justification for the use of animals in psychological research is that there have been significant benefits to humans and animals alike.
For example, Skinner’s Rats experiments have had countless profits in the control and conditioning of maladaptive human behaviours. From the experiments it was found that when behaviour was rewarded, it was repeated, that punishments didn’t work, and that negative reinforcement was most effective in removing undesirable behaviours. This has been applicable in prisons, schools and mental hospitals to the benefit of both the subjects and the officials, and in the long run, to society by remoulding behaviour to be socially acceptable, a fair justification to rats being confined, fed and subjected to electric shocks.
Where does one draw the line though? Where do the costs start to outweigh the benefits? The question is valid and Bateson’s Cube has the answer. Three criteria are assessed: the quality of the research, the certainty of medical benefit and animal suffering. If, after this, the experiment falls into the shaded area of the cube, it should not proceed.
Bateson’s Cube is a useful device for decision-making, but there is a significantly greater chance of animal research being declined than given the go ahead. Also, where animal suffering is high, quality of research is low or the certainty of benefit is low and the quality of research is moderate, animal research is precluded without having to take into account the other factors.
It is because of the many issues involved in animal research that experimenters use the three Rs system to check that the use of animals is necessary. The Rs stand for Replace, Reduce and Refine. The experimenter must first check that the animal could not be replaced by another form of subject. If animals are necessary then the experimenter must reduce the number of animals used and refine the tests to ensure that the animals are as comfortable as possible.
Due to the three Rs and Bateson’s Cube, the utilitarian argument is the prevalent and generally accepted one. However, animal rights activists continue to stand up for their ethical and moral objections, and the debate continues.
--Alexandra Payne--