Critically consider the arguments for and against the use of non-

human animals in psychological research (30 marks)

Animal research is regulated by the Home Office and BPS, and many psychologists
need to obtain a licence before the research will commence. Animal research is
usually conducted when the experiment cannot be conducted ion humans because it
might be too damaging. Legislation is in place to protect animals as much as possible
from harm, but there are many arguments for and against the use of animals is
research.

WADELEY observed how animals damaged crops and from his research, he created
more effective ways to protect crops. One of these ways was to use scarecrows rather
than poison, which meant that less harm was caused for both animals and the
environment. This is an example of how research can be conducted on animals in a
way that is ethical and productive. BATESON’S decision cube would state that
animal research should only be conducted if the certainty of obtaining quality results
would benefit society. Also, the suffering of the animals should be low and the
research should be good quality.

Wadeley’s research fits the criteria and therefore it would seem a good piece of
research to support the argument that research should be conducted on animals to
benefit everyone. Some critics would argue that animals should only be used in
research if an important cure can be found for some life threatening illnesses
(medically justification argument), but even though Wadeley’s research does not find
a cure for any illness, it is still a valuable piece of research that is helping to improve
the lives of animals and the environment.

FURNHAM questioned 250 students about whether or not research on non-human

subjects in Psychology should go ahead. All of the students agreed that any research
that resulted in animal suffering should be banned. However if the research would
find cures for serious illnesses such as Alzheimer’s then it should go ahead. This
supports the medical justification argument, which states that animal research should
go ahead to help improve the health of humans.

Using animals to test cosmetics was highly disapproved amongst the students. A
problem with using animals in research is that the reason they are used in the first
place is usually because humans cannot take part in such research. For example,
BRADY and the executive monkey experiment was used to investigate the effects of
stress on the body that would be too unethical and too much psychological and
physical harm would have been encountered. Psychologists have mixed reactions
about whether animals in research can be compared to humans anyways. Animals
cannot speak and do not have higher cognitive functions unlike humans.

Also, the physiological of animals is very different to humans, for instance,

MILLER’S biofeedback experiment, the rats had a heart rate of 450 beats a minute,
but the standard human heart rate is only 78 beats per minute. Also, certain drugs
have different effects on humans as compared to animals. Morphine makes cats
hyperactive active, but in humans it is used as in pain relief. This can make us
question whether animal’s research really is any good. Can we compare the findings
from animals to humans in such a straightforward manner?

A psychologist called REGAN is against all animal research stating that it is too cruel
and unjustified. He wants to see all animals research banned. Even if humans have
illnesses such as cancer, Regan states that nothing much can be done about these
illnesses and we should learn to live with them, but should not be experimenting on
animals to find cures. For instance, research has been conducted on rats looking at the
effects of lack of sleep.

Neurones in the pons and the SCN were destroyed in the rats to look at the effects,
and many of them died as a result. This research was conducted in order to cure sleep
disorders in order to try to help humans. Regan would be very against the research
and would argue that the rats in a cruel and unethical way; was this study really worth
killing so many rate to fund a cure for a sleeping disorders? Regan would think that
this study should have never been conducted.

SINGER would argue that research on animals should be minimised and should only
go ahead if absolutely necessary in order to find important cures. GREEN conducted
research on rats and looked at the neurones in the brain and circuits. He managed to
locate some of the causes of Alzheimer’s disease by conducting this research. This is
known as the medical justification argument and states that some research should
go ahead if it is to further medical advancements and cures for illnesses.

Therefore Green’s research is justifiable, is useful to society, and so should go ahead.

Some critics might disagree and state that the rats in the research would have suffered
greatly in Green’s research, especially as their brain circuits and neurones were
examined and interfered with. This means that ethics would need to be considered and
the rats would have encountered possible some physical harm. This again has no other
options as we cannot really use humans to perform such research it would be too
unethical and no one would really consent to it anyways. This leaves us with the
moral obligation dilemma, where we need to protect animals in research, but cannot
do this if we want to test on them to find cures for human illnesses.

There are many arguments for and against the use of animals in research, however if
we must use animals we should consult the Bateson’s decision cube, and should make
the animal as comfortable as possible. The minimum number of animals should be
used and only when absolutely necessary, e.g. to find a cure for cancer. There will
always be the debate in society about whether animals should be used in research, and
there are strong arguments from both sides supporting and contradicting the issue.