The use of animals Constraints on the use of animals Arguments for and against their use in psychological research Practical Moral & ethical

The use of animals Many pitfalls for the unwary: Unsubstantiated assertion e.g. animals feel as much pain as humans Naïve assumptions e.g. animal researchers do it because they’re evil and they enjoy it Irrelevance e.g. writing about medical, surgical or cosmetic research, not psychological investigations

The use of animals Many examples are possible, from many different areas e.g.: Developmental (maternal deprivation) Physiological (stress, sleep) Abnormal (drug treatments) Try to select a variety to show synopticity

Constraints on use Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act Licensing & inspection Constraints on numbers & species Requirements for suitable facilities Competence & qualification requirements

Constraints on use BPS guidelines on animal research Specific application to psychology Requirement for humane treatment Requirement to consider alternatives Cost benefit analysis

Arguments for Practical arguments (is it useful?) Continuity Convenience Usefulness Ethical arguments (is it moral?) Utilitarianism Duty to species

Continuity We share common ancestry with other animals (Darwin, 1859) Basic similarities in physiological structure & functioning Behavioural similarities with some species (e.g. primates) Animal research therefore gives valid information about human processes

Convenience Animals can be used in ways humans can’t Short lifespans & breeding cycles enable inheritance to be studied Behaviour can be controlled and monitored in ways impossible with people Less reactivity

Usefulness Animal research is demonstrably useful to psychologists Knowledge of nervous system structure & functioning Understanding of stress, abnormal behaviour, sleep… Our understanding of human behaviour would be very limited if not for animal research

Ethical arguments Utilitarian The suffering of a small number of animals is justified because it helps a large number of people Moral duty We have a moral obligation to our own species to advance knowledge and reduce suffering. Animal research is justified if it furthers this (Gray, 1991)

Other points The constraints on the use of animals protect animals sufficiently and prevent unnecessary suffering This is shown by: Reduction in number and range of animals used in labs Increase in non-invasive & field-based studies

Arguments against Counterarguments to those presented in favour of animal research Discontinuity or continuity? Ecological validity Generalisability Moral arguments

Discontinuity or continuity? Points out an inconsistency in continuity argument If other animals are so similar to us they should be afforded the same ethical considerations as us Or, if they are so different from us, then generalisation is of questionable value

Ecological validity Questions the value of the data obtained from animal studies Lab based animal studies produce unnatural behaviour (e.g. drug addiction studies) Field studies disturb the environment & consequently, behaviour

Generalisability Suggests that even when data are valid, they can’t be applied to humans Differences in human and animal evolution & genes Structural differences in nervous system (e.g. cerebral cortex) Influence of language, culture, higher cognitive processes

Moral arguments Utilitarianism gives human suffering priority over animal suffering – this is a form of discrimination (speciesism; Singer, 1975) Animals have rights as people do. We have a moral obligation to protect them. No amount of regulation can justify animal research

Other points Safeguards are difficult to enforce; abuses may be undetected Cost benefit analyses as required by guidelines easily skewed in favour of research The fact that you never know in advance the outcome of research means that some will always be useless

Conclusions These are up to you, but make sure you… Look at both sides Present a balanced argument Use suitable examples to support your claims