u01d2 Animal Research The APA Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals, Section

I. A., state: Research should be undertaken with a clear scientific purpose. There should be a reasonable expectation that the research will: a) increase knowledge of the processes underlying the evolution, development, maintenance, alteration, control, or biological significance of behavior, c) increase understanding of the species under study; or d) provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals. For this discussion:

Locate and read an article from the Capella Library about ethical issues in research with animals. Answer: o What are some of the benefits of animal research? o What are some of its drawbacks? o Do you anticipate a time when we will no longer use animals in scientific research? Include enough information to support your position. Cite your source using standard APA guidelines.

The use of animals in behavioral and biomedical research has become a topic of heated discussion in recent years from a wide variety of viewpoints. This controversial debate regarding animal testing has serious social, political, philosophical and psychological implications as well. The paradigmatic element of the dialogue and debate on animal testing rests mainly on the relative moral value and ethicality of humans versus animals. Its important to note that there has been more documentation on the moral status of animals over the past twenty years than over the past 3000 (Rollin, 1985)! Consequently, the invasive use of animals in scientific research in recent years has been confronted with challenging moral and ethical inquiries: 1) Do humans have the right to use animals for behavioral and biomedical testing for the benefit of curtailing or eliminating illness and disease?, 2) Is it inhumane for researchers to subject animals to testing procedures because animals are imbued with an enhanced moral value?, and 3) Does the information acquired through animal testing supersede the pain, suffering and death of an animal used in testing procedures? Inquiries such as these have led to the essential ubiquitous question: Can we derive a common set of moral ideals for animals from our own intrinsic and cherished moral ideals regarding the dignity of human life?

Ongoing debate on the relative moral valuation of animals has essentially polarized competing factions regarding this controversial issue today. On one side the scientific community ceaselessly clamors that animal testing is essential to cure life threatening diseases such as cancer and AIDS, and points to the fact that fifty times more animals, abandoned by their owners, are killed by humane societies each year than those used in scientific research (Carlson, 2013). By way of contrast, animal rights groups tend to stereotype all animal testing as immoral regardless of such facts and portray engaged researchers as sadistic torturers of a helpless and voiceless constituency. 1. What are some of the benefits of animal research? Carlson (2013) points out that although we may refrain from eating and hunting animals, we cannot make sufficient progress in combating illness, disease and various medical and behavioral disorders that beset mankind without the use of animal testing. Benefits to animal testing include hormone extraction to prepare vaccines to combat various diseases such as AIDS and cancer as well as drug testing to determine specific contraindications. Moreover, by recognizing that nervous systems of all vertebrate animals show basic similarities to humans, patients suffering from neurological disorders may also benefit from research informed by neurological research derived from animal testing. 2. What are some of its drawbacks? The major drawback and concern of animal testing is the harm and death incurred to the animal as the result of the use of experimental testing of medications and treatments. Its well documented that many animals are severely injured or die due to the assimilation of harmful substances used in experimental testing. Another drawback is the cost and reliability of animal testing. Animals must be cared for and may be tested numerous times. The cost of maintaining animals and research protocols can be high. Furthermore, animals may differ from humans in their reaction to various treatments and medications, thus limiting research validity and reliability as applicable to humans. As a result of increasing pressure from the general public as well as animal activists, decisions regarding the use and treatment of animals in experimental environments are no longer routine. The use of live animal testing requires strict adherence to standardized ethical criteria under the scrutiny of such organizations as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Gavin and Herzog, (1992) conducted an interesting research study selecting 160 undergraduate students to act as hypothetical members of the IACUC to simulate and investigate the cognitive moral decision making process that actual members of the IACUC may engage in regarding the use of animal testing. The participants were instructed to approve or reject five research proposals involving animal testing and document their reasons. The findings indicated several metacognitive reasons for approval or rejection of the research proposals such as projection, emotion and logic in moral judgment, and cost-benefit analysis.

The most prominent reasons for selection or rejection were emotional involving how the participant would feel if he or she was subjected to the same treatment as that of the animal. Cost benefit analysis was second in which participants sought to determine whether the suffering of the animal far outweighs the learning benefit. Gavin and Herzog (1992) suggest that the difficulty in assessing the dimensions to resolve ethical dilemmas within each proposal illustrates the complexity of the psychology of moral judgment surrounding this volatile issue of animal testing. 3. Do you anticipate a time when we will no longer use animals in scientific research? Biological research involving animal testing is essential to understanding and treating medical, mental and behavior illnesses and disease, and will most likely continue indefinitely in varying degrees and forms. However, there are measures that can be implemented to minimize the use and harmful risks to live animals in experimental designs. An important consideration in biomedical research is adherence to legislation that requires investigating the use of alternatives to live animal testing whenever feasible. Replacements of higher animals with lower animals such as invertebrates, plants, reptiles, etc. may be effectively used in some studies with significant correlational results. Lastly, refinement of experimental protocols and procedures involving minimizing pain through anesthetics, proper handling and preparation of treatment medications with standardized toxicity limits, establishing clear surgical limits per animal and post surgical care will also ensure greater care, preservation and protection for animals used in biomedical research. Anthony Rhodes General Psychology PhD. References Carlson, N. R. (2013). Physiology of behavior (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 9780205239399. Gavin, S. L., & Herzog, H. A. (1992). The Ethical Judgment of Animal Research. Ethics & Behavior, 2(4), 263. Rollin, B. E. (1985). The moral status of research animals in psychology. American Psychologist, 40(8), 920-926. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.8.920