• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Use of non-human animals in psychological research.

Extracts from this document...


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'. ...read more.


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. ...read more.


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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Zoology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Zoology essays

  1. Animal welfare essay

    An experiment carried out investigated the social preferences and separation stress in dairy calves. They concluded that calves seem to prefer a familiar calf to an unfamiliar calf, and the presence and familiarity of a companion calf affects the calves' reaction to separation (Faerevik, Jensen, Boe 2005).

  2. Is there an important moral difference between human beings and animals

    However, I believe it cannot be right for those eating the meat from animals to purely neglect the way they are killed and also those who kill animals are only working. So, it cannot be justified as people are simply working to keep a living, so should not be prosecuted as a potential risk to other humans.

  1. Free essay

    A review of a case study on feline aggression and possible treatments

    'This inappropriate behaviour can take the following forms: substrate or location aversion, substrate preference for urination, defecation, or both, location preference for urination, defecation, or both, and spraying', (Overall, 2001). It would appear that Ted's house soiling problem is linked to territorial spraying triggered by the arrival of Alfie.

  2. Should Animals Have the same Rights as us?

    restrict the freedom of the animal which every human being takes for granted. Sports such as hunting that cause pain to animals would be disallowed because they are very similar to that of rearing livestock except the animals are free.

  1. Cloning argument

    �Clone.� Encarta Online. 2001 ed. www.encarta.msn.com (6 Apr 2001) Dahl, Gabby. �Cloning for Medical Purposes.� Human Cloning Organization Homepage. www.humancloning.org Gibbs, Nancy. �Baby, Its You and You and You.� Time. 19 Feb 2001: 46 - 57 �Reasons Not to Clone.� Washington Post.

  2. To what extent we can say animals have language

    Findings from the experiment with chimpanzees do not suggest that they grasped the idea of structure dependant operations and neither do the other studies of animals. Similarly, there is no evidence of animals having an ability to reflect e.g. talking about the language in terminology.

  1. This study attempts to explore the basis of people's fear of animals.

    The goal of the psychodynamic therapy is to expose and neutralize the material that the ego is defending against, so that the ego will be free to spend its energy in more useful tasks. This can be achieved through the process of free association7.

  2. Using the Grounded Theory to explore people's views on animal use: What factors influence ...

    The same researcher interviewed all 17 participants. Each interview started by asking whether the participant held different attitudes towards different types of animal use and, if so, why this was the case. In keeping with the principle of theoretical sampling (Strauss & Corbin, 1997), new issues were included in the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work