Animal Research



right2628900Animal ResearchNadia Duarte12/1/1576500Animal ResearchNadia Duarte12/1/15In the field of psychology there are a few controversial subjects that are frequently debated and are surrounded by misconceptions. Animal research and testing has been used successfully for centuries, which has helped to develop scientific knowledge in regards to medical research and how the human body works. Animal research is helpful in the case that animals are the closest living beings to humans. In today’s world animal research is only conducted when it is the only feasible way to test a new medication or treatment. All animals in today’s research labs are monitored and regulated to ensure that the research labs are following all ethical standards that are set out by the American Psychological Association. It is important to note however, that there are many who are opposed to animal research. There are multiple points that should be looked at extensively since they bring up a number of valid arguments against animal research. The most frequent point that is often seen is that animal research is often seen as something that is unethical, unjustified, and inhumane. While this will be addressed more closely later in the paper, it is important to recognize that there is a point to animal research; to save and enhance lives, lives that are not just human but lives of all living beings including animal lives. When examining the greater picture and the research it is hard to deny the important role that animal research has not only in the current society, but in the past as well. Animal research has been around as long as there has been written records being kept. According to a timeline put together by Plous (1997) the first official record of animal research is 300 bc kept by Aristotle. It is said that he and other intellectuals of the time used animals to help understand various medical procedures by performing the procedures on the animals. After this not much is seen until the 1200’s. A scientist by the name of Ibn al-Nafis used animals to study the circulatory system and the way the blood flows throughout the body (Plous, 2013). During this time, many general anatomy experiments were performed on animals to better understand how the human body worked as well. The late 1800s was the first time the idea of having animal rights was brought up. According to Dewsbury, in 1822 “a bill providing penalties for cruelty to animals was prepared by Richard Martin and was approved by Parliament” (Dewsbury, 1991). In the early 1900s Emil von Behring used guinea pigs to examine the effects of Diphtheria and applied his research to create the first vaccine. In 1921, in a study done by Frederick Banting, dogs and cows went through various testing that determined that Insulin came from the Pancreas. This lead to a successful treatment to diabetes that was able to be used on human patients the following year. From this point forward, there are a multitude of medicinal discoveries that had a direct impact on bettering both human and animal life, such as finding the vaccine for tuberculosis, polio. The use of anesthesia allowing life-saving surgeries to be common practice. With this development, scientists were able to practice heart procedures to see if they can be done on humans. Currently, we are using animals to see just how far we can copy the human genome. Scientists are working with Dolly the sheep who came from an adult sheep cell (Plous, 2013). If the ability to work with genes becomes more advanced through science and continued animal testing this could lead to breakthrough science with the ability to regrow limbs, as well as help couples who may not be able to conceive a child. It is not always the easiest thing for a researcher to perform these operations on animals. Psychologists such as Darwin, Pavlov, Spencer, Huxley, and Romanes all struggled with coming to terms with animal research, especially in psychology. They accepted it to be necessary in the continuation of developing sciences in medicine and in the behavioral sciences as well (Dewsbury, 1991). In a Utilitarian point of view, it makes sense to say that the benefit from working with and gathering research from animals is for the common good of society. John Dewey, a Psychologist for the APA stated that there are only two ways that would allow animal testing to be considered ethical. The first is when the alternative to animal testing is “random and possibly harmful experimentation upon human beings, and so far as such experimentation is a means of saving human life and of increasing human vigor and efficiency” (Dewsbury, 1991). The second case is when “the community at large is under definite obligations to see to it that physicians and scientific men are not needlessly hampered in carrying on the inquiries necessary for an adequate performance of their important social office of sustaining human life and vigor” (Dewey, 1926). These are not the only moral standards that have to do with animal testing. Once it was realized that animal research and testing is useful practice the American Psychological Association (APA) set up some guidelines to make it regulated and as humane as possible. There are six practices that must be in place for the animal research to be considered ethical and valid by the APA. These include the following: According to the APA the research using animals must be considered justified. This means that the research project must have a direct purpose. There should be a reasonable expectation that the research will help to understand the development, maintenance, and other aspects to behavior. To increase the understanding and knowledge of a specific species and to help determine the replicability of prior research. Perhaps the most important aspect of validity is that the research provides results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals. Throughout the research it is expected that the researcher be knowledgeable on the subject, they go through the proper channels and the protocol of the study is reviewed by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to ensure that the process is as humane and ethical as possible. The second APA expectation is that the personnel involved with the research will be educated on the animals that are being researched. They will know the difference between unusual and normal behaviors, that those working with and around the lab will not take part in any activities that may exceed their understanding or competency about the research or animals that are present in the study. In order to make sure that animal’s overall well-being is being met, the APA sets standards on the housing and care of the animals that are being tested on in the laboratory. It is said that the housing for animals should at least meet the current regulations and guidelines, and are expected to be inspected twice a year. All of the procedures that are carried out on animals are also looked over by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to ensure that all procedures are humane and nothing is being done to the animal to make them any more uncomfortable. No procedures are done besides the ones that are absolutely essential to the valid research question. This concept also applies to how the animals get to and from the research lab since is it also the psychologist’s responsibility to ensure to the best of his ability that the animals have adequate amounts of food, water, ventilation, space, and they encounter no unnecessary stress.The fourth APA Standard states that “laboratory animals not bred in the psychologist’s facility are to be acquired lawfully”. In the case of uncommon or potentially endangered animals the research may only be conducted if the correct permissions and permits are acquired through the Fish and Wildlife Service. The fifth APA Standard is that the experimental procedures that take place are conducted as ethically, humanely, and responsibly as possible. This is done through careful observation of the animal to ensure that no sign of unnecessary distress is shown as to not directly interfere with the result of the research. It is expected that the research animal is anesthetized and be made as insensitive to pain as possible throughout the procedure, and when it is necessary the animal is then euthanized before regaining consciousness to minimize pain. And if, the research displays adverse reactions for the animal or show tissue damage that require greater justification than what was already produced for the study and the symptoms cannot be reversed the animal should be euthanized immediately. Animals should only be used when other methods have been adequately given thought and the conclusion has been reached that no other research design could be a sufficient substitution. The fifth APA Standard is simple; while doing field research it is important that nothing be done to the animal that could potentially alter it in any way since it is being kept in the wild and could impact he ecosystem in a way that is unforeseeable. It is also essential that no animals be released back into the wild after having been experimented on, so the animal doesn’t harm the larger eco-system. The final APA Standard states that animals that have been experimented on should be allowed to be used in classroom and live demonstrations for the ability to learn and grow in education and understanding. With the understandably strict APA regulations in place it is difficult for any unethical practices and procedures to take place. All animal research is closely looked over, regulated, and monitored to ensure that no unnecessary harm is done.As briefly mentioned earlier the knowledge that animal research brings to the field is irreplaceable. In fact, Coon states that “psychologists use animals to discover principles that help solve human problems in such diverse areas as obesity, memory, stress, psychosis, therapy, and aging” (Domjan, 1995). Perkins gives three reasons why animal research must be supported for the betterment of society. First off the continued suffering and death of millions of humans. Animal Research has the possibility of preventing so much unnecessary suffering and death, it would be unethical not to do everything we can to help out the greater society and help alleviate human pain. Perkins second point is that without animal research there would be “a total absence of adequate alternative methods in the study of many research questions” (Perkins, 1990). There would be a multitude of questions that were left unanswered and altering the reliability of psychological understanding because there would be nothing that could allow psychologists to study their theories on humans. And lastly, if there was a ban in place for animal testing the animals themselves would suffer as well. Animals, especially many household pets, suffer from a lot of the similar diseases that humans do. It is through animal research that insulin was a way to manage diabetes and this is the case for many other diseases. Humans are affected directly by the results of animal research. The animals themselves, many who are loved household pets, also benefits from this research on a daily basis. Without the research we would have no treatment plans for rabies, diabetes, or other diseases that affects both humans and animals. There is a lot to be said for the similarity between humans and animals, especially when looking at our genetics. It gives science a place to start, when looking to advance medical research and understanding psychological concepts that affects humans and animals alike. Research Maier, who published his findings as early as 1934, studying the different part of the brain in rats. He studied people who had Traumatic Brain Injuries, comparing the different areas of the brain that were harmed and the effect that it had on the person. Using rats Maier explored the different areas of the brain and found that different areas of the brain were responsible for specific things; mainly that the cortex is the part of the brain responsible for reasoning. While examining how closely animals and humans are alike in physical make-up it is also essential to pay attention to how animals and humans morally compare. King (1986) boldly stated that animals do not and cannot have rights because when granting rights it is reasonable that the recipient must, at some point in their life, be “understanding of, and in compliance with the expectations of the society” (King, 1986). Since at no point in the life of an animal are they capable of reaching this understanding they do not have rights, but King goes on to say that it is because of “human awareness of the sentience of other species and our ability to empathize with suffering” that encourages humans to act with care and compassion.There are many advocates against animal research who make the claim that using animals in psychological research is not ethical and is inhumane. This argument that the rights and regulations that are in place for animals simply are not enough. In fact the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) gives the fact that of the 9,000 animal research facilities that are regulated by the USDA, there are only 99 qualified inspectors to check in on the facilities the mandatory two times a year. While this is an incredibly low number for a large amount of labs, it is not unreasonable to think that there is not a real way to make sure that all facilities are following the rules that they need to. The big picture is this: as previously discussed all research, before it is allowed to happen, must go through an extensive examination by the APA to ensure that no other route is possible besides the use of animals, the research is being conducted to serve a direct purpose, the handlers of the animals and the lab are all well-educated in the field, and that any and all will be done to lessen as much pain and discomfort as possible without interfering with the research itself. It could also be argued that there are a multitude of alternatives to animal testing which could lead to the saving of money from research facilities and the fact that less animals would need to suffer from being involved with the research. Gallup states that the alternatives to animal research includes naturalistic observation, especially when studying anything that has to do with behavior (Gallup, 1985). By keeping the animal in the environment where it belongs, the results would be as accurate as one could hope to obtain. If wanting to study the development of an animal, or even the relationships that it has with its surroundings, it is not unreasonable to use a case study. Bowd proposes the use of plants and bacteria as an alternative to animals. Plants often show a much more rudimentary style of adaption, survival, and reproduction, thus examining plants and other basic organisms should not be out of the question (Bowd, 1990). But, as Gallup points out, plants and bacteria can only get research so far since they are missing the central nervous system and a brain in particular (Gallup, 1985). Computer Simulations are not out of the running to be a substitute for animal research. With the advancement in technology it should be considered to be a feasible option. Unfortunately, it can only get psychologists so far. The computer lacks the ability to have original thought, so it can only rely on the data that has already been found and it can only use what is already on the computer (Gallup, 1985). No new data could ever be developed with this kind of research. In this way, animal research is necessary to obtain new data, especially in the considerations of getting appropriate data for behavioral and experimental designs; there really is no other substitute. Another point that the opposing side could propose is that animals who are used in psychological experiments go through suffering for very few results. Very few researchers publish findings that result in failures. This leads to the conclusion that there is a lot of animal research that is done that leads nowhere and nothing beneficial comes out of it. All that happens is that a lot of animals die needlessly and a lot of money is spent on the research. In fact, PETA states that “92% of drugs tested on animals do not make it through the first phase of human testing”. This could, and often does, lead people to view that it just isn’t worth the testing on animals. It is a different story however when the benefits derived from animal testing is factored in. In a study done by Gallup (1988) when questioning 263 University students it showed that about 85% disagreed with the statement “I would rather see humans die or suffer from disease that to see animals used in research”. Agreeing with that statement about 67% agreed with the statement that “new surgical procedures and experimental drugs should be tested on animals before they are used on people”. Consequently, when asked if the students believed that “many important biomedical break-throughs are a consequence of animal research”, over 72% agreed. And they were quite right, as animal research has helped develop everything from vaccines, treatments, and the methods and procedures to make every day surgical operations as safe and knowledgeable as they can be. There are many valuable points that are made on both sides of the argument, but there are many facts that can be agreed upon by those who stand on either side. Those who do any research in this field can come to the conclusion that animal research and testing has advanced the science field in ways that were before unforeseeable in medicine and physiology. The question, and argument, comes though when it is examined how those results came about. Medical breakthroughs and advances do not happen often. While it is true that many animal tests and experiments go without any meaningful results (PETA, 2013), it is hardly the case that each experiment is meaningless. Each experiment that is done, paves the way for a future experiment, with a little bit of knowledge and understanding that was not previously had. Thus, while making an educated decision about how animal research has impacted not only the modern society, but the modern world, a moral and ethical person would be forced to see animal research as not only reasonable, but ethical as well. Animal research has led to the advancement of modern science and past science. While a focus has mainly been placed on medicinal advancements, the facts are that animals have helped to understand almost every portion of modern psychology that is studied today which involved memory, sensation, perception, aging, development, motivation, behavior, and attachment (Dewsbury, 1990). These facts should not be overlooked or ignored simply because one does not always agree with the method of reaching the understanding. The blatant truth is that while some animals may experience some discomfort, and even pain throughout the research, the animals are being used in an honorable way by advancing society and helping out humans. If even one human being benefits because of animal research then involving animals should be considered worth it. In conclusion, animal research has been around as long as there has been written record, while not all of it was performed under the most ideal or perfect conditions there is a negative stigma that exists with it. It must be realized, that like many things, animal research is not the same as it was over 2,000 years ago. In fact, it is a moral and ethical practice that takes place in order to help the human race and animal species. Rules and regulations for research facilities and experiments are in place to ensure that animal lives are not needlessly endangered and harmed. As being the closest living being to humans, it is only natural that there is a sense of compassion and desire to protect the creatures. It must not be forgotten though, how much suffering and lives are being saved because of the research that is taking place. The research that is being performed often not only benefits human lives, but can also be seen to better animal lives as well. While, there are many understandable reasons as to why animal testing should not be allowed to be performed by research facilities, the fact is that animal research has led to many world- altering discoveries that have changed the way society is able to live, for the better. As long as the APA ethical standards continue to be utilized, animals are used for a direct purpose and as the only option for the research to be successful, animal research should be seen by society as something that is not looked down upon, but cherished as something acceptable and beneficial for all those that live within society.ReferencesAPA. (2012). Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research. American Psychological Association. Bowd, A. D. (1990). A decade of debate on animal research in psychology: Room for consensus??Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,?31(1), 74-82.Dewsbury, D. A. (1990). Early interactions between animal psychologists and animal activists and the founding of the APA committee on precautions in animal experimentation.?American Psychologist,?45(3), 315-327.?Domjan, M., & Purdy, J. E. (1995). Animal research in psychology: More than meets the eye of the general psychology student. American Psychologist,?50(7), 496-503.Gallop, G. G., & Beckstead, J. W. (1988). Attitudes toward animal research.?American Psychologist,?43(6), 474-476.?Gallup, G. G., & Suarez, S. D. (1985). Alternatives to the use of animals in psychological research.?American Psychologist,?40(10), 1104-1111.Maier, N. R. F. (1934). The pattern of cortical injury in the rat and its relation to mass action.?Journal of Comparative Neurology (and Psychology),?60, 409-436.Perkins, K. A. (1990). Support of animal research needed: Comment on Dewsbury.?American Psychologist,?45(11), 1270-1271.?PETA. (2013). Primates in laboratories. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: The animal rights organization. Plous, S. (1997). Animal research in psychology.?American Psychologist,?52(11), 1250-1252. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download