‘Using non-human animals in psychology is useful but also problematic.’ To what extent do
you agree with this statement? Justify your answer using your psychological knowledge. [25]
In today’s society, non-human animals (NHA) are commonly used in psychological
investigations instead of humans, which remains a contentious issue in psychology. NHA’s
are used to help humans in therapy, and to participate in studies to further our knowledge
in order to advance society. Even though NHA are useful in this regard, their participation
can be problematic in terms of ethical issues and other weaknesses. One of the main
concerns is whether NHA behaviour can be accurately applied and generalised to humans?
Another issue regarding the use of NHA in psychology is the ethical costs involved. Even
though guidelines regarding the use of NHA are set in place to protect NHA, it still raises
ethical concerns. With these points in mind, the use of NHA’s in psychology can be very
useful for psychologists, however it does arise many problems for both society and the
NHAs, and so must be treated with caution.
In order to limit the problems that are included in the use of NHA in psychological
investigations, the British Psychological Society introduced guidelines for Psychologists
working with animals (2020). It ensures psychologists conform to current legislation, which
refers to the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986), to maintain the NHA wellbeing.
It also makes sure that the 3 Rs are being acted on (Replacement, Reduction and
Refinement). The 3Rs were introduced in 2000 by the Home Office, which was first
proposed by Russell and Birch in 1959. It includes Replace, which is what researchers should
seek, wherever possible, to replace animals research with suitable alternatives. However,
some disagree as the variables are easier to control with the use of NHA, and so more
reliable results are achieved. The second R is Reduce, which refers to reducing the number
of animals used in the study. One method psychologists can achieve this is using repeated
measures design. A famous study which did not abide by this was Pavlov’s study of
conditioning (1897) where he used 35 dogs. This could have been reduced significantly, and
many argue that the harm of 35 dogs was not significant enough to condone the
investigations effect on society. Finally, the third R is Refine. This suggests that psychologists
must refine their procedure so that it causes the least amount of suffering possible for the
NHA. The third rule of the guidelines by BPS requires psychologists to choose a species
which is suited to the research purposes. Finally, the act makes psychologists be consciously
aware of the animal’s previous experiences, as it dictates how the animal should be housed,
what they should be fed, and what happens to them at the end of the study. Failure to
abide by these rules may lead to licensed psychologists being banned from conducting
further research and being prevented from publishing their work. Psychologists’
investigation must also follow the following criteria in order for the study to be conducted
when involving NHA: potential findings are important enough to justify the harm, the study
cannot be done without NHA, the minimum number of NHA will be use, and suffering of the
NHA will be kept to the absolute minimum. So, the use of NHA may be argued to be deemed
acceptable due to the guidelines put in place to ensure that the NHA are treated humanely
in the studies. So, if psychologists follow these laws and guidelines, there is arguably no
reason why NHA cannot be used. Even though this legislation is enforced to ensure the
safety and minimise the problems involved in the use of NHA, many psychologists argue
that all the guidelines accomplish is legitimise the NHA suffering they face in the
investigations. Such as Dunayer (2002) who argued that the animal legislation simply sets
you agree with this statement? Justify your answer using your psychological knowledge. [25]
In today’s society, non-human animals (NHA) are commonly used in psychological
investigations instead of humans, which remains a contentious issue in psychology. NHA’s
are used to help humans in therapy, and to participate in studies to further our knowledge
in order to advance society. Even though NHA are useful in this regard, their participation
can be problematic in terms of ethical issues and other weaknesses. One of the main
concerns is whether NHA behaviour can be accurately applied and generalised to humans?
Another issue regarding the use of NHA in psychology is the ethical costs involved. Even
though guidelines regarding the use of NHA are set in place to protect NHA, it still raises
ethical concerns. With these points in mind, the use of NHA’s in psychology can be very
useful for psychologists, however it does arise many problems for both society and the
NHAs, and so must be treated with caution.
In order to limit the problems that are included in the use of NHA in psychological
investigations, the British Psychological Society introduced guidelines for Psychologists
working with animals (2020). It ensures psychologists conform to current legislation, which
refers to the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986), to maintain the NHA wellbeing.
It also makes sure that the 3 Rs are being acted on (Replacement, Reduction and
Refinement). The 3Rs were introduced in 2000 by the Home Office, which was first
proposed by Russell and Birch in 1959. It includes Replace, which is what researchers should
seek, wherever possible, to replace animals research with suitable alternatives. However,
some disagree as the variables are easier to control with the use of NHA, and so more
reliable results are achieved. The second R is Reduce, which refers to reducing the number
of animals used in the study. One method psychologists can achieve this is using repeated
measures design. A famous study which did not abide by this was Pavlov’s study of
conditioning (1897) where he used 35 dogs. This could have been reduced significantly, and
many argue that the harm of 35 dogs was not significant enough to condone the
investigations effect on society. Finally, the third R is Refine. This suggests that psychologists
must refine their procedure so that it causes the least amount of suffering possible for the
NHA. The third rule of the guidelines by BPS requires psychologists to choose a species
which is suited to the research purposes. Finally, the act makes psychologists be consciously
aware of the animal’s previous experiences, as it dictates how the animal should be housed,
what they should be fed, and what happens to them at the end of the study. Failure to
abide by these rules may lead to licensed psychologists being banned from conducting
further research and being prevented from publishing their work. Psychologists’
investigation must also follow the following criteria in order for the study to be conducted
when involving NHA: potential findings are important enough to justify the harm, the study
cannot be done without NHA, the minimum number of NHA will be use, and suffering of the
NHA will be kept to the absolute minimum. So, the use of NHA may be argued to be deemed
acceptable due to the guidelines put in place to ensure that the NHA are treated humanely
in the studies. So, if psychologists follow these laws and guidelines, there is arguably no
reason why NHA cannot be used. Even though this legislation is enforced to ensure the
safety and minimise the problems involved in the use of NHA, many psychologists argue
that all the guidelines accomplish is legitimise the NHA suffering they face in the
investigations. Such as Dunayer (2002) who argued that the animal legislation simply sets
