Q. Using examples from psychology, critically consider the use non-human animals in research. [25]
When considering the use of non-human animals (NHAs) in research, a cost-benefit analysis is
needed to weigh up the wider benefits to society and the potential harm inflicted on NHAs. These
potential harms are not limited to physical pains but psychological pains. Like humans, NHAs are
sentient, with ability to feel, think and experience emotions. These are the costs that needs to be
minimised and critically considered when NHAs are used in psychological research. Animal studies
are highly valuable as humans and some NHAs share similar ancestry and physiology, with similar
behavioural and social patterns, findings are useful for researchers to learn about human behaviour.
Animals are less prone to demand characteristics of researchers and can be argued more valid.
However, as animals cannot give informed consent or withdraw from research, ethical issues arise
when animal rights conflict with the interest of researchers. BPS guidelines need to be adhered to
ensure animal welfare in NHA research, in order for the scientific gain of the research to outweigh its
risk of harm to NHA Ps.
The BPS Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals (March, 2020) is used to highlight
potential ethical issues that may arise and methods to make animal research more morally
acceptable. Basic principles of the BPS guideline revolve around the Animal (Scientific Procedures)
Act (1986). The conduction of animal studies is governed and monitored by the Home Office. This
piece of legislation requires research to take place in licensed lab with licensed researchers on
licensed projects. Unlike usual guidelines, researchers need legal approval from Home Office which
holds legal power. Apart from gaining legal approval, prior to research, a species of NHAs must be
chosen that is suited for research purpose. Avoid using pregnant or endangered animals. Researchers
must also heed the NC3R (National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of
animals in research). When planning a research, researchers should use 3R, which consists of
reduction of number of NHAs used, refinement of procedure to minimise animal distress or harm,
lastly, replace NHAs with alternatives. For instance, use computer simulations or brain scans instead
of NHAs as participants. These guidelines limit the cost to NHAs in animal research, by minimising
the number of animals used and by keeping suffering to a minimum. The BPS guideline advises
researchers to study the previous experience of animals, provide social animals with companions and
allow appropriate food intake to meet the needs of specific NHAs used. Conversely, Dunayer (2002)
stated that animal legislation set standard for imprisonment, enslavement of animals. In other words,
just because guidelines are followed, that the psychological research is legal, this doesn’t make the
act of harming NHAs right. Similar to slave trade back in 1800s, despite slave trade being legal at the
time, this doesn’t justify forced enslavement. In addition, guidelines were not adhered to by
researchers. Kilkenny et al (2009) partnered with NC3R and analysed 271 studies. They found that
only 59% of studies mentioned the number of animals used. Moreover, different numbers of animals
were reported in methods and results. The inconsistency in the reported and actual number of
animals used shows the limitation of guidelines and legislations regarding the use of NHAs, though
they were to be adhered to in theory, in reality, it is often not the case, shown by 59% animal
research analysed. The 1986 Scientific Act also only protects animals halfway through their gestation
period, further limiting the protection of recently pregnant animals in research. However, male NHAs
are actively preferred to be Ps in research to avoid this ethical issue. This poses an issue to the
validity of these gender biased animal research, its male sample lacks the representativeness of the
actual population with a more equal gender split. This is often not balanced in NHA research, limiting
the usefulness of its findings. Findings from male animals only sample would have to be generalised
to female animals as well, meaning it is not fit for purpose and downplays the gender difference in
When considering the use of non-human animals (NHAs) in research, a cost-benefit analysis is
needed to weigh up the wider benefits to society and the potential harm inflicted on NHAs. These
potential harms are not limited to physical pains but psychological pains. Like humans, NHAs are
sentient, with ability to feel, think and experience emotions. These are the costs that needs to be
minimised and critically considered when NHAs are used in psychological research. Animal studies
are highly valuable as humans and some NHAs share similar ancestry and physiology, with similar
behavioural and social patterns, findings are useful for researchers to learn about human behaviour.
Animals are less prone to demand characteristics of researchers and can be argued more valid.
However, as animals cannot give informed consent or withdraw from research, ethical issues arise
when animal rights conflict with the interest of researchers. BPS guidelines need to be adhered to
ensure animal welfare in NHA research, in order for the scientific gain of the research to outweigh its
risk of harm to NHA Ps.
The BPS Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals (March, 2020) is used to highlight
potential ethical issues that may arise and methods to make animal research more morally
acceptable. Basic principles of the BPS guideline revolve around the Animal (Scientific Procedures)
Act (1986). The conduction of animal studies is governed and monitored by the Home Office. This
piece of legislation requires research to take place in licensed lab with licensed researchers on
licensed projects. Unlike usual guidelines, researchers need legal approval from Home Office which
holds legal power. Apart from gaining legal approval, prior to research, a species of NHAs must be
chosen that is suited for research purpose. Avoid using pregnant or endangered animals. Researchers
must also heed the NC3R (National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of
animals in research). When planning a research, researchers should use 3R, which consists of
reduction of number of NHAs used, refinement of procedure to minimise animal distress or harm,
lastly, replace NHAs with alternatives. For instance, use computer simulations or brain scans instead
of NHAs as participants. These guidelines limit the cost to NHAs in animal research, by minimising
the number of animals used and by keeping suffering to a minimum. The BPS guideline advises
researchers to study the previous experience of animals, provide social animals with companions and
allow appropriate food intake to meet the needs of specific NHAs used. Conversely, Dunayer (2002)
stated that animal legislation set standard for imprisonment, enslavement of animals. In other words,
just because guidelines are followed, that the psychological research is legal, this doesn’t make the
act of harming NHAs right. Similar to slave trade back in 1800s, despite slave trade being legal at the
time, this doesn’t justify forced enslavement. In addition, guidelines were not adhered to by
researchers. Kilkenny et al (2009) partnered with NC3R and analysed 271 studies. They found that
only 59% of studies mentioned the number of animals used. Moreover, different numbers of animals
were reported in methods and results. The inconsistency in the reported and actual number of
animals used shows the limitation of guidelines and legislations regarding the use of NHAs, though
they were to be adhered to in theory, in reality, it is often not the case, shown by 59% animal
research analysed. The 1986 Scientific Act also only protects animals halfway through their gestation
period, further limiting the protection of recently pregnant animals in research. However, male NHAs
are actively preferred to be Ps in research to avoid this ethical issue. This poses an issue to the
validity of these gender biased animal research, its male sample lacks the representativeness of the
actual population with a more equal gender split. This is often not balanced in NHA research, limiting
the usefulness of its findings. Findings from male animals only sample would have to be generalised
to female animals as well, meaning it is not fit for purpose and downplays the gender difference in
