by Cathleene Filmore

Created on: February 18, 2009   Last Updated: August 12, 2010

In keeping with the regulations set forth by the federal government in regards to animal testing and research, the American Psychological Association (APA) has published guidelines to which Psychologists and researchers are responsible to adhere (Myers & Hansen, 2006). These guidelines, while they attempt to lay down ground rules and ethics for experimental research in regards to animal testing, fall short of doing so. In fact, guidelines b., d., and f. actually conflict with each other.

Guideline b. states that Psychologists and researchers are "responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of the animal's comfort;" letter d. continues by saying that "reasonable efforts be made to minimize discomfort;" and letter f. states "efforts should be made to minimize pain," and finally letter g. makes provision for the procedures of euthanizing the animal (Myers & Hansen, 2006).

The guidelines that the APA has set for do not compel a Psychologist or researcher to practice ethical standards through the humane treatment of animals during research. These guidelines simply state the minimum requirements of the law. Furthermore, in a world that is highly technologically advanced, I challenge the idea that it is still necessary to test on animals at all.

While I do not agree with the animal rights point of view that "all sensate species, particularly those that feel pain, are of equal value and have equal rights," I do believe that animals are life, intelligently created by God, and that it is irresponsible for the human race to practice research on them (Myers & Hansen, 2006). As a general rule, my personal conviction is that as a human race we are to care for animals. I do not believe that it is wrong to eat meat, but I do believe that as a whole our society consumes far too much of it. In the case of the baby whose life was spared by transplanting a baboon heart, I believe that this was necessary, as it directly saved a life. Research, however, is indirect in it's approach.

The pros of animal research may be more life like research, however the cons are tortured animals. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg University has been at the forefront of developing alternatives to the use of animals in research and testing. In our modern technologically advanced world this institution has come up with several viable alternatives that give us the ability to end all animal research and testing. At this point in time the cons of animal testing and research are definitely beginning to outweigh the pros and it is time to stop for good.

References

Johns Hopkins University. (2008). http://www.caat.jhsph.edu/programs/index.htm

Myers, Anne, & Hansen, Christine. (2006). Experimental psychology. Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont,

CA.

Learn more about this author, Cathleene Filmore.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.