,

i

'I

imal Research

Mike Cardwell

This [book] is about the tyranny of human over non-human animals. This tyranny has caused and today is still causing an amount of pain and suffering that can only be compared with that which resulted from the centuries of tyranny by White humans over Black humans. The struggle against this tyranny is a struggle as important as any of the moral and social issues that have been fought in recent years.

(Singer, 1975) Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (Singer, I 975) captures the essence of the moral debate surrounding animal experimentation. In the light of these sentiments, can psychology justify the continued use of non-human animals in research, or are the moral arguments against such research now irresistible?

~ ~

Testing whether or not rhinos land on their feet.

2 PSYCHOLOGY Review

Is it really worth it?

..... he use of animals in psychology has always been an issue that has generated passionate debate and, occasionally, acts of violence against those who carry out animal research. These actions have arisen because of the public's belief that scientists are cruel to the animals they use and achieve little with their research (Driscoll & Bateson, 1988).

Although the vast majority of the public does not condone the violent behaviour of some animal rights groups, it is clear that public sympathy is shifting towards an appreciation of the rights of animals and the improperness of animal research in general. Most of those scientific disciplines that use animals in their work have pre-empted the consequences of this concern by developing their own strict guidelines for the use of animals in scientific research. Public concern for the rights of animals in research has, indeed, been welcomed by the majority of scientists. Some, though, have pointed out the moral inconsistency of arguments against the use of animals in research when pet abuse and intensive fanning exposes animals to conditions far worse than they would experience in any psychology laboratory (Miller, 1985).

Why do we bothert

Perhaps one way of unravelling the difficult moral issues of animal research is to consider why animals are used at all in the research process. Animals are used for a variety of quite different reasons. Firstly, animals are used in medical research and in product testing where the outcomes of such research have an obvious benefit to humans. As human diseases have terrible emotional, social and economic costs, so finding a cure is usually seen as sufficiently valuable to justify the suffering of animals (Driscoll & Bateson, 1988). Animals may also be used because they provide a convenient way of exploring natural principles (e.g. of learning) or where there are ethical rest.rictions on the

use of human participants in research (e.g. in conditions of deprivation or environmental restriction). Finally, animals may be studied because we are interested in some fascinating aspect of their behaviour or in the species as a whole.

The benefits to human beings of the last category of research may not immediately be obvious. It is possible, of course, that there is no relevance to human beings at all, but studying the natural principles that underlie the behaviour of our fellow species is intrinsically valuable, and may eventually provide insights into human behaviour that prove equally valuable. The study of animals in their own environment has also provided clear and often spectacular improvements to the lives of pets, farm animals and animals living in zoos. Wildlife management and conservation programmes, as well as work with endangered animals, have all benefited from the study of animal behaviour.

But is it rightt

Of course, none of this would be relevant if we were to reject animal research on purely moral grounds. Many of the ethical considerations that apply to humans (such as informed consent and privacy) could not apply to non-human animals. Researchers have almost absolute power over their subjects, and thus the risks of taking part in research may be far greater for animal subjects than they would be for their human counterparts. The moral battleground this creates has become the province of the animal rights activist, yet the moral repugnance that many activists feel for animal research is seldom articulated within a wellconstructed philosophical argument. Two such positions are the utilitarian argument and the rights argument (see Box 1).

Despite the differences between these two philosophical positions, both lead to the same conclusion - that animal research as it is now conducted should be abolished, regardless of its apparent advantages to human beings. Despite the seductive nature

The animal rights argument

The fundamental belief of the animal rights position is that all animals have rights that are based on their inherent value. These rights include the tight to be treated with respect and not to be harmed. A consequence of this position is that animals have the right not to be used by humans for research regardless of any potential benefits for humans that might arise from such research. The traditional scientific position on animal research, claim proponents of this position, treats animals as 'renewable resources' rather than as organisms of value whose rights we must respect. If we fail to recognise the rights of other species, according to this argument, we would be violating the principle of respect.

Tom Regan, a champion of this position, believes that we cannot justify animal research by quoting benefits for human beings or even improvements to research conditions. Unlike the utilitarian position, animal research would not be tolerated under any conditions. What we need, claims Regan, is not larger, cleaner cages, but empty cages. Cost-benefit considerations are insufficient justification for animal research.

of this almost fundamentalist position, many people find it difficult to ac~ept that human life or wellbeing has no greater value or importance than that of non-humans.

Critics of animal research have pointed out that many animal studies are highly invasive and are frequently of only questionable value. Bowd (1980) suggests that a large proportion of the findings from animal studies is never published because it is rejected by mainstream psychology journals. A large proportion of animal experimentation is seen as repetitive or dealing with problems to which the answers are 'self-evident' (Bowd, 1980).

The utilitarian argument

The main focus of the utilitarian argument is that what is ethically acceptable is that which produces the greatest pleasure and happiness (relative to pain and suffering) for the greatest number of people. According to this argument no one person's happiness is more important than any other's. Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation, published in 1975, extends this utilitarian argument to include all sentient (capable of sensation) creatures. His 'principle of equality' holds that all such creatures have an equal interest in avoiding pain and suffering. Consistent with this principle of equality is the belief that we have no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species (e.g. humans) over those of other species. To do so would be to commit speciesism, which is logically parallel to other forms of discrimination such as racism and sexism. Species ism, according to Singer, is the result of a prejudiced attitude which sets the interests of our own species above those of other species. Research on animals might be permitted under some circumstances, but only when the potential benefits of the research are high and the research could also be carried out using human subjects.

If the gain outweighs the pain, animal research may have its place, according to the utilitarian argument

The potential benefits of animal research, claim its critics, are difficult to determine. The justification of research that may involve stress and invasive procedures is, given this criticism, somewhat more debatable.

A final problem with animal research is a more politically motivated one. Those who oppose animal research are frequently criticised for the exaggeration and deceptive nature of their campaigns. However, those who defend animal research are likewise criticised for presenting a 'sanitised and misleading' picture of what animal research is really like (Bowd & Shapiro, 1993). Textbook authors fail to make explicit the fact that some of the major findings of psychological research have been established using animals rather than humans. Researchers themselves provide a smoke screen of jargon (e.g. referring to animals being 'sacrificed' rather than 'killed') to present a view of their activities that may appear altogether different and acceptable to the lay public (Kimmel, 1996).

In defence of animal research

t'j In recent years, animal researchers have a:i

g

become far more forceful in rebutting the ffi

arguments of those who oppose animal §! research. The arguments most commonly ~ used in defence of animal research are ~ summarised by Kimmel (1996). Firstly, :;Z

~ animal research has produced many benefits ~

to humans and to animals. Secondly, researchers are sensitive to the pain and suffering experienced by animals and use procedures that ensure animals are humanely treated. Finally, researchers have developed alternative procedures which have led to a reduction in the use of animals in research.

Traditional defence of the use of animals (for whatever purposes) has centred around the philosophical notion that humans and non-humans can be differentiated, in that non-humans do not possess a soul, and therefore are not capable of moral choice or, indeed, any other feelings and emotions that are peculiarly human. Despite increasing research evidence that animals are, in fact, capable of experiencing a whole range of emotions and feelings, this view of animals as 'mechanical systems' or 'renewable resources' is a hard one to shake off.

Even within the utilitarian argument, research with animals would be tolerated if it produced considerable benefits for humanity. This has led to the most well developed of the pro-animal research arguments. Experimentation with animals, it is claimed, has produced considerable improvements in the lives of human beings.

}i4 PSYCHOLOGY Review ~

J.

Conditioning techniques derived from work on animals are now in regular use within therapeutic contexts. Likewise, early views about the nature and causes of stress and the modifiability of involuntary behaviour have been shown to be incorrect as a result of animal research (Weiss, 1971). This position is still open to criticism from those who argue that the pro-animal research lobby has a tendency to over-emphasise the benefits and play down the suffering that produced those

benefits (Driscoll & Bateson, 1988). .

The need for an effective way of monitoring and controlling animal research in the UK led to the development of specific legislation devised for that purpose. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (986) allows important research to be carried out whilst safeguarding the welfare of the animals used. The controls of this Act are generally regarded as the strictest in the world. The most important aspect of this Act is that it involves a cost-benefit analysis of any intended research. The costs, in terms of any potential animal suffering, must be weighed against any potential benefits that might be derived from the research (see Box 2).

Research is carried out on animals at a/l phylogenetic levels, with justification based on relevance, utilitarianism, suffering, and practical considerations.

Box 1 How is animal research controlledt

The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986)

The Act requires that all animal research:

• takes place in approved (i.e. licensed) premises;

• is part of an approved research scheme;

• is conducted by competent persons (who must also obtain a licence to use animals).

Licences may be granted if:

• the potential benefits of the research are sufficient to justify the use of animals;

• the research cannot be carried out without using animals;

• the minimum number of animals is used;

• discomfort and suffering are kept to a minimum;

• all those involved in the research have the necessary skills and training;

• research premises have the necessary facilities to look after the animals properly.

Altematives to research using animals

fP2 •

,

f8 f' FZ ~ , ...

ci n c~ ell

t P4 PZ ~. , f, , 02

• ..

AX'

•

'-

Research on commonly used animals (such as mice and rats) could be conducted on lower organisms. As most research on animals has been conducted because ethical and practical considerations prevent the use of humans, the use of lower organisms has become a popular alternative. Investigations in the field of behavioural genetics have made increasing use of fruit flies (Drosophila) which afford the researcher immense methodological advantages over the use of other species, as well as decreased concern over possible pain and suffering. In case this suggestion sounds inconsistent with the utilitarian position described earlier, it is worth pointing out that a distinction can be made between those species that suffer pain and those that do not. Interestingly, Peter Singer makes this distinction at the phylogenetic level of oysters.

One of the most significant ways of reducing ethical concerns surrounding animal research is to focus more on the study

November 1997 5

Dian Fossey discavered a great deal about her subjects with negligible interference.

of animals in their natural environment. This approach, characteristic of ethology. is long established in animal research. A classic example of this type of work was dramatised in the film Gorillas in tbe Mist, about the work of Dian Fossey. Through a process known as 'desensltisation', Fossey was able to get close to a group of mountain gorillas by imitating their movements. As a result, she was able to record insights about this rare animal with an intimacy previously unheard of in primate research.

Postscript

The increasing public unease with animal experimentation does seem to be a product of two distinct processes. The first process, one we might refer to as the cognitive route, takes place as we are exposed to the persuasive arguments of those who oppose and those who defend the procedures of animal experimentation. Deciding on one moral position rather than another is then a matter of reasoned judgement, of weighing up the arguments of the two positions, and attempting to maintain consistency with other central values that we might possess.

The fact that so many (students in particular) appear to come down more solidly on the anti-animal experimentation side of this debate seems to be a consequence of what some researchers are referring to as moralisation (Rozin, et aI.,

1997). In this process, objects and activities that were previously morally neutral acquire a moral component. Strong images of animals being slaughtered for consumption, or of vivisection laboratories have a powerful effect in developing this moralisation process. Once begun, the process of moral commitment increases with considerable force, and we take a strong and seemingly irrevocable position on the issue in question.

Apparent contradictions in attitudes and reasoning can be dealt with through selective seeking and processing of information to support our new moral position. This is all commendable, up to a point. As Herzog (1988) points out, moral codes are the product of what he calls 'human psychology', not of 'pure reason'. Ethical judgements are inextricably bound up in a complex matrix of emotion, logic and self-interest. I would love to be able to say (like my colleague Paul Humphreys) that I am a die-hard vegan, but I am not. Until we resolve our own paradoxes of how we judge the moral status of all animals, the ethical waters surrounding the use of animals will remain very murky indeed .•

Further reading

case against laboratory animal research in psychology', Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 49, pp. 133-142.

Driscoll, ].W. & Bateson, P. (1988) 'Animals in behavioural research', Animal Behaviour, Vol. 36, pp. 1569-1574.

Fossey, D. (1983) Gorillas in the Mist, Houghton-Mifflin.

Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986), HMSO.

Herzog, H.A.,]r. (1988) The moral status of mice', American Psychologist, Vol. 43, pp. 473--474

Kimmel, AJ. (996) Ethical Issues in Behavioral Research: A Survey, Blackwell.

Miller, N.E. (1985) 'The value of behavioral research on animals', American Psychologist, Vol. 40, pp. 373-404.

Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation, Avon. Regan, T. (1983) The Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press.

Rozin, P., et al. (1997) 'Moralisation and becoming a vegetarian: the transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust', Psychological SCience, Vol. 8, NO.2.

WeiSS, ].M. (1971) 'Effects of coping behaviour on different warning signal conditions on stress pathology', Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 1-13.

Mike Cardwell is Senior Lecturer at Bath Spa University College, Chief Examiner for A-level psychology with the Associated Examining Board, and an Editor of PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW.

6 PSYCHOLOGY Review

Bateson, P. (1991) 'Assessment of pain in animals', Animal Bebauiour, Vol. 42, pp. 827-839.

Bowd, A.D. (1980) 'Ethical reservations about psychological research with animals', Psychological Record, Vol. 30, pp. 201-210.

Bowd, A.D. & Shapiro, K.]. (1993) 'The