Is it ethical to use animals in psychological research?

Harmful methods are used in some behavioural research, but this is fairly rare and definitely not achieved out of simple curiosity. An examination of articles published from 1979 to 1983 in journals of the American Psychological Association that report animal research indicated that none of the most extreme accusations  that animals were subjected to extreme brutality and death were justified (Coile & Miller, 1984). only 10 % of the studies used any shock treatment , and only 4 %used an unavoidable shock of >.001 ampere (which can be tolerated on the fingertips). Also, 80 % of the studies using shock treatment  or deprivation were financed by esteemed establishments that entail full justification of all trials and a report of purpose. Experiments performed out of mere curiosity are not funded.

Coile and Miller (1984) acknowledged that their study may not embody a perfect assessment of animal research, as they did not inspect non-APA journals and because cases of cruelty may have happened without being stated. Nevertheless, it is sure that as no accounts of abuse emerged in the major established psychology journals, cruel treatment of animals cannot be deemed a dominant trait of psychology. Furthermore, there are procedures that try to stop the cruel, negligent treatment of animals. The majority of research organisations and universities have ethics committees that assess proposals. Regulations and rules for the maintenance and handling of animals have been created by the Federal Animal Welfare Act , these rules are applied through examinations by federal and funding agencies.

The claim that psychological research on animals has not been of any benefit to humans is also unfounded. Such research has been accountable for key developments in human welfare (Miller, 1985). For example, the principles of learning established originally with animals have been used to improve  teaching and to deliver more innovative treatments of enuresis (bed-wetting), anorexia nervosa, and scoliosis. Animal research has developed methods to recuperate function in moderately paralyzed limbs and to treat high blood pressure and migraines . Research on early visual deficiencies in animals has revealed that lasting neurological changes happen, directing the medical community to highlight earlier detection and care of visual defects in babies.

Both arguments about the ethics of animals in research have been guilty of misrepresentation in their disputes on this issue. Cruelty most likely does occur, but is uncommon. Some research may be of dubious validity, however animal research has given rise to in many advantages, moreover, in most cases, no practical alternative exists (Gallup & Suarez, 1985).

Herzog (1988) showed that the verdicts being made regarding moral responsibilities to other species are often fickle and contradictory.  For example the ethical right of a rat is really subjective as to whether it is considered a lab animal, vermin, or pet. To kill the lab rat might be condemned, while to kill vermin or to use them as food for snakes is likely to create little objection. We require neither  a complete ban nor complete warrant, but a somewhat reasonable , educated, and objective assessment together with sensible ethics and the means to implement those standards.