Should animals be used in psychological and medical research?
Why or why not?
Should animals be used in psychological and medical research?
Why or why not?
Solutions
Expert Solution
Animals have been commonly used as test subjects in different
areas of psychological research. For example, in the Biological
field, animals are commonly used to develop drugs to help treat
mental disorders. Even though using animals as test subjects has
its advantages in Psychology, there are many problems with doing
this.
For instance, some people believe that it is unethical to use
animals in research, due to reasons such as animal cruelty and the
fact that it is impossible for an animal to consent to taking part
in research like a human would do.
The extent to which an animal is similar to a human is also
debatable. For example, an animal may react in a completely
different way to a newly developed drug than a human, therefore
when it’s tested on a human volunteer there could be disastrous
consequences.
In my opinion, using animals in psychological research is
acceptable. Some people may argue that it is cruel to use a
defenceless animal and that only humans who can consent to studies
should be used in psychological research.
However, I believe that when the ends justify the means in
research it is necessary to use animals as test subjects. There
have been studies where ethical issues have been raised such as
Skinner’s ‘Rat in a box’ study.
He was investigating the stimulus-response reaction when he
introduced a starving rat to a box, where he must press a lever to
receive food. In this study, even though the rat suffered some
discomfort, this was justified, as Skinner discovered operant
conditioning and successfully applied it to human behaviour.
Even though no animal is 100% similar to a human, certain
aspects of many different animals can be likened to a human. For
example, rats are creatures which can be accessed quite easily in
large numbers, therefore are commonly used in research.
They are surprisingly quite similar to humans; they have
similar basic physiology,genetic similarities range from 70%-90%,
and they are highly intelligent creatures. Therefore they are very
useful to use as test subjects.
In rarer studies, animals which have an even higher genetic
similarity to humans are used, such as apes. These animals perform
very similarly to humans in certain situations and are therefore
very useful in psychological research; however they are more
difficult to access, and it is also very cruel to remove them from
their natural habitat.
Overall, I believe that animals are a very useful way of
testing theories in psychological research, as they can tell
psychologists a lot about how the human mind works, and why it
works the way it does.
Even though there are certain ethical issues that arise from
doing this, if it is necessary in the research I think that using
animals as test subjects is acceptable. It's not fair to lab
animals, but until we have a better way to safely test medicines on
humans, we need to use animals in medical research.
“Even if psychological research cannot be completely
objective, psychologists should try to make their research as
objective as possible, and should try to minimize the influence of
their values in the research process.” Do
you agree or disagree with this statement? What do you think are
the advantages and the disadvantages of this point of view? Include
an example of possible psychological research (this could be
something you make up) when discussing the merits and limits of
objectivity in research.
Should animals be given the same moral consideration as humans?
Why or why not? Have you done anything that might help protect the
environment for future generations? Are there choices you make that
might actually add to the demise of the environment faster?
What ethical considerations should guide psychological
research on humans? How should these ethical considerations differ
from those guiding psychological research on non-human animals?
Your response should be at least 250 words.
Experimental research is not used very often in marketing
research. Why is that? Why are most marketing research studies
descriptive instead of experimental? Briefly explain how a new soda
might try to create a study using an experimental design to
determine if consumers like the taste of its new cola product. What
challenges would the soda company face in creating that design?
Could the company use a quasi-experimental design instead? If so,
which design might it use and why? Why...