Issues in Psychology



Download 160.47 Kb.
Page6/6
Date31.05.2016
Size160.47 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6

Ethical Principles


In general terms, most animal researchers subscribe to what are sometimes known as the “three Rs”:

  • Replacement of animals by other research methods

  • Reduction in the number of animals used by means of more advanced statistical techniques

  • Refinement of experimental procedures to reduce animal suffering.

Use of the three Rs has proved very fruitful. For example, 5000 monkeys a year were used in the Netherlands in the 1970s to produce polio vaccines. During the 1990s, the number was reduced to only 10 monkeys.

The most obvious problem with the use of animals in research is that many of the ethical principles guiding research on human participants cannot be applied. For example, it is impossible for animals to give voluntary informed consent to take part in an experiment, and they cannot be debriefed at the end. Bateson (1986) argued that there are three main criteria that should be taken into account when deciding whether a study on animals is justifiable (this is often known as Bateson’s decision cube):


  1. The quality of the research: this can be assessed by the funding agency.

  2. The amount of animal suffering: this can be assessed from the animal’s behaviour and any signs of stress.

  3. Likelihood of benefit: this is important, but can be hard to judge accurately.

Animal research of high quality, involving minimal suffering, and with a high probability of benefit is the most justifiable. In contrast, animal research of poor quality, involving considerable suffering, and offering a low probability of benefit is hard to justify.



NOTE: Field experimenters can disrupt the animal’s natural environment. This can continue to be stressful to the animal long after the experiment has finished.

The limitation with Bateson’s approach is that there is no guarantee of assessing any of the three criteria with precision ahead of the research being carried out. So far as research quality is concerned, research that appears in advance to be relatively trivial may actually turn out to be of major importance. So far as animal suffering is concerned, this can only be assessed indirectly since we have no way of determining what any animal is actually experiencing. So far as likelihood of benefit concerned, this typically depends on the precise findings obtained. However, we don’t know in advance what findings will be obtained—if we did, there would be no point in carrying out the experiment!



  • Ask yourself: Do you think the things that are considered benefits to human society are fixed, or do they vary across cultures and over time? Do the needs of human societies change over time? How might this affect how we decide whether research is ethically acceptable or not?



Guidelines


It is very important for psychologists to develop ethical guidelines to protect animals’ rights, and to prevent the animals from suffering or being exploited. Most institutions regard the use of animals in research as being such a sensitive matter that it is normal practice for all proposed animal experiments to be carefully considered by an ethical committee. In the United Kingdom, the Home Office has overall control. Anyone who wants to carry out animal research must have a licence, and inspectors from the Home Office regularly inspect all animal facilities. All research on vertebrates in the United Kingdom is governed by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986. This Act contains numerous safeguards to ensure that vertebrate research is ethically sound.

Investigators in most countries who are planning studies on animals are required to make use of ethical guidelines. For example, here is an extract from the American Psychological Association Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals:



Psychologists undertake research with animals “. . . with a clear scientific purpose.” . . . There should be a reasonable expectation that the research will increase knowledge of the processes underlying the evolution, development, maintenance, alteration, control, or biological significance of behaviour, b) increase understanding of the species under study, or c) provide results that benefit the health or welfare of humans or other animals.

Within the United Kingdom, the most important guidelines are those that were issued by the British Psychological Society in 1985. These guidelines state that researchers should “avoid, or at least minimise discomfort to living animals”. They represent a systematic attempt to provide a comprehensive set of rules and recommendations to guide the behaviour of any investigators who wish to carry out experiments on non-human participants. Find out more about the main points of these guidelines by following the link below.



Find out more: A summary of the British Psychological Society’s guidelines on research with non-human animals


SECTION SUMMARY: The Use of Non-human Animals
What are the benefits of animal research?

  • The benefits of animal research are less clear in psychology than in medicine.

  • Animals are used in experiments because:

    • Some procedures wouldn’t be permissible with humans (either those involving physical harm or social deprivation).

    • It is easier to use animals, especially to study the effects of heredity, because they reproduce over much shorter time periods than humans, and because it is easier to understand their behaviour.

    • Objections aren’t raised about some non-human animal research because it benefits non-human animals and/or humans.

  • The reality is that there has been a great decline in non-human animal research, and a very small proportion of animal research involves primates.
Society's views of animal research

  • Females, left-wing people, and vegetarians are more opposed to animal experimentation than males, right-wing people, and non-vegetarians.

  • Most people support animal experimentation in medical research and don’t want to see animal experiments abolished.

  • No set of ethical principles for animal experimentation could possibly satisfy all of these different groups.

  • There are also cultural and historical differences in attitudes.



Speciesism

  • This refers to the discrimination and exploitation of another species based on the fact that it is different from our own.

  • Speciesism can be defended on the grounds that:

    • We owe a special duty to our own species, and there are powerful evolutionary reasons for this preference.

    • The human species is very different to other species. Humanistic psychologists have emphasised the differences, pointing to aspects of human behaviour such as the drive for self-actualisation. If there are differences then such research is acceptable. Specieism can be opposed on the grounds that:

    • Such differences (between the human species and other species) make the research irrelevant.

    • Speciesism resembles racism and sexism, and, like these “isms”, discriminates unjustly against individuals on irrelevant grounds.

    • Primates and other mammals are similar to the human species in many ways, and thus deserve to be well treated.
Costs and benefits of animal research

  • The views of most people on animal experimentation are based on relative morality.

  • However, an analysis based on relative costs and benefits presumes that one can anticipate both of these before conducting the research, and that we can assess levels of suffering.
Ethical principles and guidelines

  • Ethical principles in relation to non-human animals can be represented by the three Rs:

    • Replacement with other methods

    • Reduction in numbers

    • Refinement of procedures.

  • One ethical problem is that animals cannot be given the same rights as human participants, such as informed consent.

  • Bateson’s decision cube suggests that researchers should consider:

    • The quality of the research

    • The amount of suffering

    • The likelihood of benefit.

  • However, all of these factors are difficult to judge accurately in advance of the research.

  • Ethical committees, ethical guidelines, and the Home Office try to ensure appropriate conduct in non-human animal research.

  • One should remember that not all studies with non-human animals involve laboratory experimentation.
Further Reading

Many of the issues discussed in this chapter are also dealt with in M.W. Eysenck (2009) Fundamentals of Psychology (Hove, UK: Psychology Press). There is good coverage of gender issues in R. Unger and M. Crawford (1996) Women and gender: A feminist psychology (2nd Edn.) (New York: McGraw-Hill). Cross-cultural research and the issues it raises are discussed in P. Smith and M.H. Bond (1998) Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives (2nd Edn) (New York: Harvester). P. Singer (2005) In defence of animals: The second wave (Oxford: Blackwell) covers ethical issues, whereas J.E. Sieber and B. Stanley (1988) Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research, American Psychologist, 43 (1), 49–55, offers a consideration of socially sensitive research.
REFERENCES

Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1987). Are social-psychological laws cross-culturally valid? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 383–470.

Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie.

Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., & Bem, D.J. (1993). Introduction to psychology (11th Edn.). New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Baron, R.A., & Byrne, D. (1991). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (6th Edn.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bateson, P. (1986). When to experiment on animals. New Scientist, 109, 30–32.

Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Bem, S.L. (1993). Is there a place in psychology for a feminist analysis of the social context Feminism and Psychology, 3 (2), 230–234.

Bem, S.L. (1994, August 17). In a male-centered world, female differences are transformed into female disadvantages. Chronicle of Higher Education, B1–B3.

Berry, J.W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128.

Berry, J.W. (1974). Radical cultural relativism and the concept of intelligence. In J.W. Berry & P.R. Dasen (Eds.), Culture and cognition: Readings in cross-cultural psychology. London: Methuen.

Berry, J.W. (1997). Acculturation strategies. In A. Baum, S. Newman, J. Weinman, R. West, & C. McManus (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psychology, health, and medicine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 157–166.

Burns, J. (1993). Invisible women—women who have learning disabilities. The Psychologist, 6, 102–105.

Ceci, S.J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994–1002.

Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D.W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books.

Cuthill, I. (1991). Field experiments in animal behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 42, 1007–1014.

Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray.

Denollet, J. (2005). DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and type D personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 89–97.

Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Eagly, A.H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 86–116.

Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J., & Makhijani, M.G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Eysenck, H.J. (1981). The intelligence controversy: H. J. Eysenck vs. Leon Kamin. New York: Wiley.

Eysenck, H.J., & Broadhurst, P.L. (1964). Experiments with animals. In H.J. Eysenck (Ed.), Experiments in motivation. London: Pergamon Press.

Febbraro, A.R. (2003). Alpha bias and beta bias in research on labour and love: The case of enhancement versus scarcity. Feminism & Psychology, 13, 201–223.

Fiske, A.P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78–88.

Flanagan, D. (1988). Flanagan’s version: A spectator’s guide to science on the eve of the 21st century. New York: Knopf.

Ford, M.R., & Widiger, T.A. (1989). Sex bias in the diagnosis of histrionic and antisocial personality disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 301–305.

Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Furnham, A., & Pinder, A. (1990). Young people’s attitudes to experimentation on animals. The Psychologist, 3, 444–448.

Gelfand, M.J., Triandis, H.C., & Chan, D.K.-S. (1996). Individualism versus collectivism or versus authoritarianism? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 397–410.

Gergen, K.J. (1985). Social constructionist inquiry: Context and implications. In K.J. Gergen & K.E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481–517.

Goddard, H.H. (1913). Feeble-mindedness: Its causes and consequences. New York: Macmillan.

Goldstein, J.S. (2001). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gray, J.A. (1985). A whole and its parts: Behaviour, the brain, cognition and emotion. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 38, 99–112.

Gray, J.A. (1991). On the morality of speciesism. The Psychologist, 14>, 196–198.

Haggbloom, S.J., Warnick, R., Warnick, J.E., Jones, V.K., Yarbrough, G.L., Russell T.M., Borecky, C.M., McGahhey, R., Powell, J.L., Beavers, J., & Monte, E. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139–152.

Hare-Mustin, R.T., & Maracek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, post-modernism and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455–464.

Harlow, H.F., & Harlow, M.K. (1962). Social deprivation in monkeys. Scientific American, 207, 136.

Harlow, H.F., & Mears, C. (1979). The human model: Primate perspectives. Washington, DC: Winston.

Herzog, H.A. (1988). The moral status of mice. The American Psychologist, 43, 473–474.

Hoffman, M.L. (1975). Altruistic behaviour and the parent–child relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 937–943.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Howitt, D., & Owusu-Bempah, J. (1990). Racism in a British journal? The Psychologist, 3, 396–400.

Hyde, J.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69.

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J.S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726.

Kelman, H.C. (1972). The rights of the subject in social research: An analysis in terms of relative power and legitimacy. American Psychologist, 27, 989–1016.

Kimmel, A.J. (1996). Ethical issues in behavioural research. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kitzinger, C., & Coyle, A. (1995). Lesbian and gay couples: Speaking of difference. The Psychologist, 8, 64–69.

Kleinman, A., & Cohen, A. (1997, March). Psychiatry’s global challenge. Scientific American, pp. 74–77.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). Development of children’s orientations toward a moral order. Vita Humana, 6, 11–36.

Kurdek, L.A., & Schmitt, J.P. (1986). Relationship quality of partners in heterosexual married, heterosexual cohabiting, and gay and lesbian relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 711–720.

Lee, R.M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage.

Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Malim, T., Birch, A., & Wadeley, A. (1992). Perspectives in psychology. London: Macmillan.

McCosker, H., Barnard, A., & Gerber, R. (2001). Undertaking sensitive research: Issues and strategies meeting the safety needs of all participants. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, [On-line Journal], 2(1). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-01/ 1-01mccoskereetal-e.htm

Mead, M. (1935). Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. New York: Morrow.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.

Morin, S.F. (1977). Heterosexual bias in psychological research on lesbianism and male sexuality. American Psychologist, 32, 629–637.

Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrenchoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a colour perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380.

Mukerjee, M. (1997). Trends in animal research. Scientific American, February, 70–77.

Nobles, W.W. (1976). Extended self: Rethinking the so-called Negro self-concept. Journal of Black Psychology, 2, 99–105.

Norenzayan, A., Choi, I., & Nisbett, R.E. (1999). Eastern and Western perceptions of causality for social behaviour: Lay theories about personalities and situations. In D.A. Prentice & D.T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Owusu-Bempah J., & Howitt, D. (1994). Racism and the psychological textbook. The Psychologist, 7, 163–166.

Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. (1980). The Asch effect: A child of its time. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 33, 405–406.

Plant, E.A., Peruche, B.M., & Butz, D.A. (2005). Eliminating automatic racial bias: Making race non-diagnostic for responses to criminal suspects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 141–156.

Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250–258.

Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioural research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Rosenzweig, M.R. (1992). Psychological science around the world. The American Psychologist, 47, 718–722.

Ryder, R. (1990). Animal revolution: Changing attitudes towards speciesism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Ryder, R. (1991). Sentientism: A comment on Gray and Singer. The Psychologist, 14, 201.

Savin, H.B. (1973). Professors and psychological researchers: Conflicting values in conflicting roles. Cognition, 2, 147–149.

Scarr, S. (1988). Race and gender as psychological variables. The American Psychologist, 43, 56–59.

Shaffer, D.R. (1993). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (3rd Edn.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R., & Sherif, C.W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and co-operation: The robber’s cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

Sieber, J.E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research. The American Psychologist, 43 (1), 49–55.

Simmons, J.V. (1981). Project Sea Hunt: A report on prototype development and tests [Tech. Rep. No. 746]. San Diego, CA: Naval Ocean System Center.

Singer, P. (1991). Speciesism, morality and biology: A response to Jeffrey Gray. The Psychologist, 14, 199–200.

Singer, P. (2005). In defence of animals: The second wave. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Skinner, B.F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.

Smith, P., & Bond, M.H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives (2nd Edn.). New York: Harvester.

Solley, C.M., & Murphy, G. (1960). Development of the perceptual world. New York: Basic Books.

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Terman, L.M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Thomas, J., & Blackman, D. (1991). Are animal experiments on the way out? The Psychologist, 4, 208–212

Triandis, H.C., Carnevale, P., Gelfand, M., Robert, C., Wasti, A., Probst, T.M., Kashima, E.S., Dragonas, T., Chan, D., Chen, X.P., Kim, U., Kim, K., de Dreu, C., van de Vliert, E., Iwao, S., Ohbuchi, K., & Schmitz, P. (2001). Culture, personality and deception in intercultural management negotiations. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1, 73–90.

Vandello, J.A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 279–292.

Westen, D. (1996). Psychology: Mind, brain, and culture. New York: Wiley.

Whyte, M.K. (1978). The status of women in preindustrial societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.



Williams, J.E., & Best, D.L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty nations study. London: Sage.

Zimbardo, P.G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2, 243–256.


Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page