Controversies "Non-human animals" with Legislations

Consideration use of Non-human animals

Weighing up conflict between wider benefits for society and potential harm to animals used.Has the study got any relevance to psychologists?

Focus should be on psychological research...NOT use of animals for cosmetic testing. Focus MUST be objective, evidence- based arguments.

Protection from Harm Legislation Act 1986

Before research can be conducted, researchers must ensure knowledge gained from study Justifies procedure, experimenters must be familiar w/ technical aspects: Anaesthesia. Benefits must outweigh costs & minimum number animals will be used.

Researchers should disturb animal as little as possible = Naturalistic Environments. If lab enviro. Needed, should be appropriate size + under correct conditions; lighting.Reserachers have duty to be aware of animals needs; company, food intake.

The 3 R's Replace, Reduce & Refine

Animal research only takes place at licensed labs w/ licensed researchers. In 2000 home office supported principle proposed by Russell & Birch.

REFINE: procedures to minimise suffering. REDUCE: amount of animals used. REPLACE: animals w/ alternative methods, I.e. In vitro methods. Following guidelines should ensure animal research is humane...

Standards for Imprisonment

However, Dunayer STATED animal legislations merely sets standards for imprisonment, enslavement & killing of animals.Making it legal DOESN'T MAKE IT ETHICAL!! & some studies r causing significant harm to animals.The NC3R's analysed 271 studies in USA/UK & only found 59% reported w/ animals used in study. Also showed significant anomalies w/ amount used in method, compared to results.

CONCLUSION: although legislation in place...it shows that NOT all research is following it, therefore ETHICS r being breached.Animlas used in research as breed species quick + easy, as they have short maturation periods -> needed to gain deeper understanding of genetic aspects of behaviour.

Harlow & Harlow 1958

Aim: Find link in maternal comfort w/ newborn rhesus monkeys, would it alter behaviour in future if withdrawn.Duration: 3, 6, 9, 12 monthsVariation 1) Infant monkeys reared in isolation from birth w/ NO contact w/e & everyone else. From 3-12 month duration -> Then put back w/ other monkeys to see effects their failure to form attachment had on behaviour.Results 1) Engaged bizarre behaviour; clutching own bodies + rocking compulsively @ start babies scared of monkeys -> then became very aggressive towards them + unable to communicate/socialise. Others bullied them. Indulged in self-mutilation, tearing hair out, scratching + biting own arms & legs.Conclusion 1) Prrivation is permanently damaging (to monkeys) + those >3 months were least affected -> those isolated <1 year = never recovered.Variation 2) Infant monkeys reared w/ surrogate mothers. 8 monkeys separated immediately after birth & placed in cages w/ 2 surrogate mothers = 1 wire + 1 soft cloth. 4 monkeys get milk from wire & 4 from cloth mother. Studied for 165 days.Results 2) Monkeys spent more time w/ cloth mother. Infants only went to wire when hungry. Once fed returned to cloth for most day. Frightened refuge w/ cloth mother = MOST effective in decreasing youngsters fear.Supports "Evolutionary theory of Attachment" = sensitive response & security of caregiver of more importance as apposed to provision of food.Difference w/ cloth mother -> Real mother = more timid, unknown how to get along w/ monkeys, easily bullied + NOT stand up for themselves, difficulty mating & females inadequate mothers. Only occurred if <90 days w/ surrogate mother. While >90 days effect could be reversed if placed in normal environment where attachment could be formed.Concluded early maternal deprivation leads to emotional damage but impact reversed if attachment was made before end of critical period.Harlow found that it was social deprivation rather than maternal deprivation which young monkeys were suffering from.

Behaviourists View

They argue humans & animals learn through Sam principles of classical & operant conditioning. Using animals is necessary as findings have led to new theories been established which benefit humans. E.g: Seligman experiment w/ dogs supported concept of learning helplessness as a cause of depression in humans = leading to development of new effective depression therapies.

Humans & non-human animals have sufficient physiology in common it is possible study animals and generalise findings to humans.

Hans Selye's Research w/ rats

Selye worked in hospital & noticed that all hospital patients shared common set of symptoms: aches, pains + loss of appetite. No matter what was actually wrong with them.later when conducting research on effects of hormones using rats, Selye again noticed this 'generalised response'. No matter which substance rats were injected w/, always produced similar response. Suggested 1 internal mechanism for dealing w/ 'noxious agents' - called "Stressors". Procedures: Rats exposed to various noxious agents; cold, surgical injury, production of spinal shock (cutting spinal cord), excessive muscular exercise or intoxications w/ su lethal doses of diverse drugs; adrenaline, morphine.Findings & Conclusion: Typical syndrome was observed and developed in 3 stages... First 6-48 hours, ALL stimuli produced same physiological triad; enlargement of adrenal glands, ulcers (open wounds) in the digestive system, shrinkage of immune system. If treatment continued, appearance & function of internal organs returned practically to normal. W/ continued treatment, after 1-3 months (depending on severity of damaging agent) animals lost their resistance & displayed symptoms of physiological triad seen in 1st stage. Results support "doctrine of non-specificity" that there is non-specific response of body to any demand upon it. Selye suggesting the responses observed in rats to noxious agents might be similar to general defence reactions to illness in humans.

Humanitarian Approach

Argues animal testing NOT acceptable under any circumstances & argues animals should be entitled to same rights as humans. In contrast, it's believed "rights" r dependent on having responsibility in society = animals do not have responsibilities in our society thus NOT entitled to same rights & therefore can be used in research even if it may cause an element of harm.

Argued animals should NOT be used in research as human case studies can be used instead. E.g: Child deprivation case studies & children in concentration camps in WW2 highlighted effects of maternal deprivation, therefore studies such as Harlow & Harlow 1959 wire mother experi. We're perhaps unnecessary.

Concept of Preparedness

Seligman argued concept of preparedness. Some animals r born prepared to learn specific behaviours in order to survive. NOT all species r born 'prepared' therefore studying rats & dogs and comparing to humans have questionable validity.

Hayes & Hayes attempted to teach vocal language to a chimp named Vikki = due to chimps vocal set up she was unable to perform task, thus biologically unprepared to carry out task -> so stress she potentially suffered during study was unnecessary.

Ethnological Psychology

Ethologists seek study animals in way that doesn't affect their behaviour, observing animals in their natural habitat w/ relatively little interference. Example; Lorenz (1935) arranged gosling eggs to hatch, and he was the first moving thing they saw. These goslings followed Lorenz everywhere as if he was their mother. Showing like Harlow, an important influence on understanding emotional development. Example; Fossey (1983) observed gorillas in natural habitat to reach greater understanding of social relationships.

Use as Therapeutic Device

*Presence of pets been shown reduce stress.*Allen (2003) reports the presence of pets reduced blood pressure in children reading aloud, kept elderly occupied and stopped them against having life event stresses and reduced cardiovascular risk.* Another therapeutic approach aimed to enable disturbed or socially isolated individuals to learn how to trust and form relationships w/ other people.* Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) involves using domestic animals; dogs, cats, hamsters and even Dolphins + horses as "Behaviour Facilitators".* The bond between them developed through physical interaction, lead into mirroring human social interaction further down the line = Ultimately being able to transfer social skills into everyday life events; communicating within society.* Therapists can use animal-client relationships as means of exploring sensitive issues & discussing painful experiences. 

EVALUATION Studies have shown very encouraging evidence into AAT. I.e; Friedmann et al. (2009) reviewed 28 studies using AAT + ALL studies report beneficial effects for emotional problems including schizophrenia, developmental disabilities & Down Syndrome. Others have criticised that the samples being used were too small, there were no control groups and individuals were NOT randomly allocated to treatment groups. Any benefits may be due to having special attention from therapist rather than any animal interaction.

Speciesism & Animal Rights

* Singer (1975) argued discrimination on basis of membership of species is no different from racial or gender discrimination, suggesting use of animals is an example of 'speciesism', similar to racism or sexism.* However Gray (1991), we have special duty of care to humans, & therefore speciesism isn't equivalent to racism.

In the animal rights, at the opposite end of spectrum of Gray is Regan (1984) believes; under NO circumstances animal research is "ACCEPTABLE". Singer's View (UTILITARIANISM): "Whatever produces the greater good for the greater number of individuals is ethically acceptable. Means animal research can alleviate pain & suffering = Justifiable. Regan's View (ABSOLUTIST):  "Animals have a right to be treated w/ respect and should never be used in research. Animal rights argument can be challenged by examining the concept of rights; Having Rights is dependant on having responsibilities in society, I.e: as citizens.  Therefore be said that animals do NOT have any responsibilities, they do not have any rights.

FACTS

British law requires any new drug (e.g: antidepressants) must be tested on at least 2 different species of live mammal. Therefore such research results inevitably in some degree of pain & suffering for animals involved. Thus psychotic drugs allow people w/ mental illnesses to lead relatively 'Normal' lives = Protecting them & Protecting Society. Addiction research (also uses animals) offers important insights into this troubled behaviour.