The ethical defence of animal research
Humans have a moral obligation to humans first (a rather ‘speciesist’ assumption!)and the alternatives to animal research are either ethically undersirable(i.e.testing humans) or practically undesirableusing less reliable methods such as non experimental observations or computer simulations).
Anti-vivisectionists have been accused of only drawing attention to a minority of the most vivid cases of animal suffering in psychology(although many would argue that such a minority of cases is still ethically unjustfiable).
There are now many safeguards in place to prevent the unnecessary use of animal research in psychology.
Ethical guidelines for the use of animals in psychological research
The experimental psychology society(1986)has issued guidelines to control animal expermentation based on the legislation of the ‘animals(scientific procedures)act’(1986),by stressing that all researchers should:
Avoid or minimise stress and suffering for all living animals,and always consider the possibility of other options to animal research.
Acquire a home office licence to conduct animal research(which can only be obtained if the research aims are approved and certain conditions are met,such as suitable knowledge of the species and its living conditions,limits on the maximum level of electric shock allowed,ect.).
Be as economical as possible in the numbers of animals tested.
Bateson(1986)has specified some of the factors involved in deciding on the viability of animal research.often the decision will involve a trade off between
A the certainty of benefit from the research.
B the quality of the research.
C the amount of suffering involved for the animals.
Home offices licences are most likey to be awarded if factors’a’and’b’are high,and factor’c’is low.