XIII. THE USE
OF ANIMALS IN PSYCHOLOGY
The focus of psychology is the organization of
behaviour. It is concerned with processes that control and direct adaptive and
maladaptive activity, and so the range of phenomena studied is broad, and the
paradigms and research settings employed are varied. The study of behaviour
may incorporate physiology, pharmacology, ethology, or even sociology, and for
that reason the distinction between psychology and closely related disciplines
is often blurred. Through the history of the discipline, extending back, for
example, to nineteenth century work on reflex organization, through Pavlov's
fundamental discoveries about conditioning, and more recently to the identification
of motivational and reward systems through electrical stimulation of the brain,
animal behaviour has played a central role in research and conceptualization.
Although there are clearly recognized limitations to the use of animals in research
(e.g., no access to verbal report), it does permit a control of hereditary and
experiential variables that could seldom be achieved in other ways. Furthermore,
animal research places humans in an evolutionary context and makes possible
a comparative and biological perspective on human behaviour.
Basic animal research in psychology has
played a significant role in advancing our understanding of processes of
learning, memory, perception, motivation, and emotion, and of behavioural
adaptations of individuals and species to their environments. While much
of this work has addressed theoretical issues, it can have direct implications
for contemporary applied problems. Examples of such problems that affect
animals directly include captive and domestic animal care, non-lethal means
of predator control, and the reintroduction of endangered species to their
former habitats. Examples of problems that have a direct effect on human
welfare include the control of depression, phobias, pain, addiction, and
the pathological effects of stress and anxiety.
Although it may be convenient to dichotomize
research activities as basic and applied, it is important to recognize
that there is a continuum and that it is difficult to know a priori
where along that continuum the implications of some research program will
fall. Applications sometimes follow quite directly from basic research,
and fundamental discoveries often arise in applied research. It is also
important to appreciate, as Hebb (1966) has pointed out: "Before we can
have applied science, we must have a science to apply." This is a position
shared by many researchers who, while cognizant of applied implications,
orient their work toward the elucidation of issues that are basically scientific
and theoretical in nature.
Since psychological research approaches
a wide range of topics with a diversity of methodologies, it is not surprising
that animal research in psychology may not be well understood outside the
discipline. The following points are directed at research strategies and
general experimental procedures that have apparently been sources of misunderstanding:
1. Many problems
studied by psychologists deal with the understanding and control of psychopathology,
such as depression, phobias, psychosomatic disorders, psychoses, hyperactivity
and learning disabilities, obesity and addiction. Many aspects of these
problems cannot be studied satisfactorily in human patients because of
the difficulties associated with non-experimental paradigms in determining
the causal relationship among variables. In other words, when one studies
patients with a form of psychopathology, all one can establish is that
some variable, X, is correlated with the pathology, P. Yet an understanding
and control of the problem requires knowing more than correlations. It
is necessary to establish whether that variable X in some sense causes
or is an antecedent of the pathology P, whether the pathology P is an antecedent
for the change in variable X, or whether the two variables are related
only indirectly and non-causally through their relationship to some common
underlying variables yet to be determined. Seldom is it practicable to
study these kinds of important issues in human patients using the necessary
experimental (as opposed to correlational) research designs. One alternative
and productive research approach has been to use animal models. In the
present context, such models refer to "the production, under controlled
conditions, of phenomena analogous to naturally occurring disorders."
A more extensive discussion of the concept
of animal models in psychology may be found in the literature (Abramson
and Seligman, 1977).
Using such models, it becomes possible
to conduct experimental studies involving the active manipulation of variables,
and this permits clarification of the relationships among variables. It
is important to recognize, however, that a model is simply that, and requires
validation through a detailed study of its essential features and an analysis
of its similarities to the psychopathology in question.
2. In addition
to their use in applied problems, animal models play an important role
in the development of fundamental behaviour theory. Research may study,
for example, the behaviour of animals pressing a lever in an isolated chamber,
in order to examine the way in which the frequency or patterning of lever
presses is controlled by the schedule of food reward or reinforcement.
No one is terribly interested in lever pressing as a behaviour in itself;
however, this simple and easily quantified behaviour can be viewed as a
model or analogue of more complex forms of behaviour. The assumption is
that if one can understand the basic principles that control a simple behaviour,
one will have at least a place to start in developing principles that govern
more complexly organized behaviour systems.
Similarly, when researchers use electric
shock as a means of producing stress or of motivating animals to escape
or avoid, they are fully recognizant that electric shock does not normally
occur in nature. They do assume, however, that this particular easily controlled
aversive event can serve as a model or analogue of other unpleasant events
that do occur naturally and affect behaviour. This use of models in psychology
is often misunderstood by those outside the discipline. It is important
that they note that questions of the validity of the assumptions and the
adequacy and generalizability of a model cannot be answered a priori
and are more productively approached through empirical* research than logical
argument.
* It should be noted that
the word empirical has two quite different, but equally correct meanings
of which the reader should be aware. The first refers to work that is based
on a systematic observation and the application of scientific principles
in methods. It is in this sense that the word is normally used in psychology
(although there also occurs the word
empiricism, which refers to
a philosophy of knowledge). The second meaning of empirical is found in
the medical sphere, and refers to work that "relies on or is based on practical
experience without reference to scientific principles as, an empirical
remedy". It is related to the noun, empiric, which refers to one
"ignorant of scientific principles" and who "lacks regular training and
proper qualifications" (Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College
Edition, 1970). The reader should be aware of these two quite opposite
meanings and of what is implied by the psychologist when characterizing
research as "empirical".
3. A basic assumption
of contemporary psychology is that the brain is the organ of the mind,
a term which simply refers to the internal processes that determine the
organization of complex behaviour. Accordingly, one approach to the study
of the properties of mind is to study the functioning of the brain. Such
research is sometimes correlational in that it relates indices of brain
function (e.g., electroencephalograms [EEG], evoked potentials) in humans
and animals to behavioural processes. Often, however, and for reasons related
to the control and sorting out of relationships among variables discussed
under point 1), the research involves an experimental study of the effects
of manipulation of the brain on behaviour. No one assumes that the brains
of experimental animals are miniature human brains; however, it is assumed
that the basic principles of brain organization are common across mammalian
species and that the brain of the particular animal species may
serve as a model for certain aspects of human brain function.
4. Psychologists
incorporate and manipulate motivational variables in their research for
three somewhat dissimilar reasons. The first is when the subject of study
is the motivational system in question, e.g., the control of feeding or
drinking behaviour. In such a context, it is obvious to all why an animal
might be on a water or food- restricted regimen. The second is when the
motivational system in question is being used as a model for other appetitive
or aversive motivational systems, as discussed under point 2). A third
reason, and one that is often not well appreciated by those outside the
discipline, is that such manipulation represents an effective means of
facilitating the controlled study of phenomena only indirectly related
to the motivational manipulation.
Behaviour that is oriented towards obtaining
access to food and water, or escaping or avoiding an aversive event, can
form the basis of sound inferences about non-motivational processes associated
with, for example, learning, memory or perception. The origin of the misunderstanding
is that, although motivation is manipulated, the dependent variables of
the study relate to learning. The misunderstanding is compounded by the
fact that although sometimes the interest is in learning as a process itself,
other times it is in learning as a process that is affected by sensory,
perceptual, motor or other processes that are in fact the principal foci
of the study. As a simple example, consider the case of studying the capacity
of an animal for pattern discrimination. One approach might be to place
the animal repeatedly into a chamber with two doors. Behind the door with
pattern A, food is always to be found. Behind the door with pattern B,
there is no food. The animal is then taught to enter one of the doors each
time it is placed in the chamber. To learn to enter the door behind which
the food is located requires the animal to be motivated and interested
in finding and consuming the food, and that is why motivation is manipulated.
When the animal can consistently perform the correct response, i.e., when
it has learned to go to the door with pattern A, one is in a position to
make some statement about the perceptual capability of the animal, even
though what was measured was learning, and what was manipulated was motivation.
The analysis of learning is central to experimental psychology, and motivation
is necessary for that analysis. The rationale for the choice of motivation
manipulated is not always obvious, but the later discussion of Guideline
7 attempts to identify some of the considerations that are made. Often
these considerations relate to practicability and minimization of behavioural
variability, which promotes the economical and efficient use of animal
resources.
Over the years, members of the general
public, the discipline of psychology itself, and other disciplines, have
expressed concerns about aspects of psychological research involving animals.
In part, this may be due to psychology including as subjects of study phenomena
to which one can easily relate on a highly personal level (e.g., stress,
pain, anxiety, motivation, etc.). In part, this may be due to a poor understanding
of the nature of the model systems as a research tool, and we have tried
to address that in these introductory remarks. However, in large measure,
this is undoubtedly due to a language, vocabulary, or jargon used to characterize
phenomena, events, or hypothetical processes that can sometimes conjure
unrealistic, distressing images. Those with concerns are to be encouraged
to become fully informed about the nature of psychological research, and
those engaged in research are to be encouraged to be sensitive to these
concerns and to discuss openly their work and its implications with concerned
individuals outside their discipline.
Certain procedures used in the study of
psychological problems undoubtedly do produce some distress in animal and
human subjects, and this places directly on the investigator a responsibility
to question seriously what is being done, why it is being done, and where
the work will lead. The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) and the
scientific community have had a continuing concern for these and other
issues related to the care and use of experimental animals. In the recognition
that there are certain aspects of behavioural research that are misunderstood
and can be problematic with respect to research ethics, the Canadian Psychological
Association (CPA), in consultation with the CCAC, has prepared the following
set of guidelines to assist psychologists as researchers and instructors
in making the ethical decisions viewed to be an integral part of behavioural
research with animals. It is hoped that these guidelines will complement
those of the CCAC and facilitate the conduct of ethically responsible research
that will promote our understanding of basic processes underlying behaviour.
GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF ANIMALS IN
RESEARCH
AND INSTRUCTION IN PSYCHOLOGY:
COMMENTARY AND ELABORATION
The discipline and profession of psychology
in Canada shares with contemporary society a deep concern for the welfare
and humane treatment of animals, especially in scientific research and
instruction. While it is recognized that animal research is essential to
the further development of scientific knowledge, it is also recognized
that there are limits to what should be done to animals in the conduct
of that research. In response to this concern, the Canadian Psychological
Association (CPA), in consultation with the Canadian Council on Animal
Care (CCAC), has formulated these guidelines to assist psychologists as
researchers and instructors in making the ethical decisions that are an
integral aspect of working with animals. These have been published in a
form suitable for posting in laboratories. The purpose of this commentary
is to provide some elaboration of considerations that psychologists should
give with respect to implementation of the preamble and each guideline.
Psychologists have an obligation to
advance knowledge and promote welfare through the competent conduct of
research, the accurate communication of findings, and the effective instruction
of students. However, their values and goals as scientists sometimes come
into conflict with their values related to the treatment of living organisms.
Dilemmas posed by the conflict cannot be resolved by rigid rules and regulations,
but require a careful weighing of values and alternatives. In many cases,
the decisions reflect a relative judgement of the value of the research
and the effects of the procedures on the animals. Psychologists using animals
for research or instruction should be prepared to make such decisions and
to explain the bases of their decisions to an informed audience. The following
guidelines are intended to assist the scientist in making these ethical
decisions.
The CPA's Guidelines for the Use of
Animals in Research and Instruction in Psychology were formulated from
the ethical perspective advocated by Diener and Crandall (1978a) in their
book Ethics in Social and Behavioural Research. They consider research
ethics to be a process of decision-making rather than one of devising explicit
rules and regulations intended to govern the conduct of all research under
all circumstances. Their approach is well represented in the following
passage:
"The ethical or moral scientist makes individual
judgements about research practices in light of his/her own values. According
to this approach to ethics, the moral person is not one who blindly follows
ethical codes, no matter how enlightened. The ethical decision-maker is
one who realizes that his/her choices are related to values, and weighs
these values carefully when making important decisions. For the moral person
there may be a few moral absolutes (Szasz, 1967); however, he or she realizes
that most moral decisions must be made individually in each case (Smith,
1969). This meaning of ethics emphasizes the process by which the decisions
are made as well as the final choice. The decision is made by a person
who
is educated about ethical guidelines, carefully examines moral alternatives,
exercises judgement in each situation and accepts responsibility for his/her
choices (Diener and Crandall, 1978b) (emphasis added)."
As reflected in the Preamble to these Guidelines,
this ethical framework clearly places the responsibility for the careful
consideration of personal, social, and professional values on the individual
scientist. A corollary of this is that the individual researcher or instructor
must accept responsibility for choices through accountability to an informed
public. Specifically, the investigator must be able to explain the rationale
for both the research problem and its methodology to informed colleagues,
peers, and institutional committees. If necessary, the investigator must
be able to defend the research against the criticisms that suffering inflicted
on animal subjects was unnecessary in view of the objectives of the research,
or unconscionable in view of the balance between the suffering inflicted
and expectation of gain in scientific knowledge or education. The present
commentary is intended to provide the scientist with an indication of problematic
issues and concerns that require special attention and consideration.
A. THE SCIENTIST
1. Prior to
undertaking a research or instructional project with animals, the scientist
has a responsibility to be sufficiently knowledgeable to ensure compliance
with these guidelines. When in doubt about compliance, the scientist should
consult with informed colleagues and the institutional Animal Care Committee
(ACC) and give due regard to their advice. Investigators are reminded
that it is the policy of the major granting agencies, e.g., Medical Research
Council (MRC) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC), of government departments and of most universities that ACC approval
must be received prior to commencing any project with animals.
The position that the ethical scientist
is one who can make informed decisions and who is prepared to give a reasoned
judgment for the values and appropriateness of the objectives and procedures
of the research or teaching assumes a considerable depth and breadth of
knowledge by the scientist. The decisions involved are usually complex
and multifaceted. If they are to be informed, scientists must be familiar
with the recent literature relevant to the problem, aware of the current
status of the problem, familiar with procedures involved, either through
study of the literature or direct experience with the techniques, and aware
of potential risks. When undertaking research in a new area, or when the
research involves severe stress, pain, or privation, the investigator may
have doubts about the breadth and depth of his/her knowledge and experience.
Under such circumstances, there is an obligation to consult with informed
colleagues and/or the ACC and to give due regard to their advice. Such
consultation does not absolve the investigator from responsibility for
the decisions; however, it is evidence of a responsible attitude towards
becoming sufficiently knowledgeable to undertake research in an ethical
manner.
2. A scientist
trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals
should ensure that the comfort, health and humane treatment of experimental
animals are given appropriate consideration.
Psychological research frequently requires
that an investigator interact with animal subjects over an extended period
of time. Accordingly, the psychologist has a vested interest, quite apart
from humane considerations, in ensuring that experimental animals are well
treated and healthy; otherwise, it is likely that behavioural data will
be unreliable and the research objectives not achieved. Although the day-to-day
maintenance and/or behavioural testing of animals may be done by trained
technical staff, it is the responsibility of the individual scientist to
be able to recognize good and poor practices by staff and students. This
ability requires training in research methods and experience in animal
care procedures. While our attention is naturally drawn to practices that
involve pain or physical illness, the scientist should be sensitive to
problems that can arise from the capacity of some animals to form human
attachments (e.g., the distress that might be experienced by the animal
when returned to isolated quarters at the end of a prolonged study).
3. The scientist
should ensure that all individuals under his/her supervision have the training
and competence needed to carry out their responsibilities for experimental
procedures, care, maintenance, and handling of the species being used.
A variety of technical skills is required
in any laboratory to ensure proper care and handling of animals, and it
is the responsibility of the scientist to ensure that all supervised individuals
have the skills and attitudes required to carry out competently their assigned
duties. Since every species has unique biological and social needs, the
design of experimental and maintenance protocols should take into consideration
the species' normal ecology, evolutionary history, and behavioural adaptations
to the natural environment. It is the responsibility of the scientist to
acquire sufficient expertise in these regards, and to ensure that the training
of technical staff, students, and research associates is adequate to meet
their respective responsibilities. This is necessary, not only from the
point of view of the humane treatment of animals, but also from the scientific
perspective of generating reliable data.
4. The scientist
should be fully cognizant of the CCAC's guidelines and of current federal,
provincial, and local laws and regulations concerning the acquisition,
care, use, and disposal of animals.
This guideline is self-explanatory. As
professionals and as members of society, psychologists have a responsibility
to be aware of and to follow federal, provincial, and local laws and regulations
concerning animals. In cases of doubt, the scientists should consult with
the chairman of the ACC or with the CCAC. Compliance with this Guide
is a requirement of Canada's major granting agencies, many journals in
Canada, and ACCs.
B. RESEARCH
5. There must
be a reasonable expectation that studies involving animals will: a) increase
understanding of structures and processes underlying behaviour; b) increase
understanding of the particular animal species used in the experiment;
or c) result eventually in benefits to the health and welfare of humans
or other animals.
This guideline outlines the general spheres
to which psychological research should contribute if animals are legitimately
to be involved. It specifically recognizes the value of research, the implications
of which are largely theoretical or philosophical, and is consistent with
the CCAC guidelines in that there is a reasonable expectation that the
development of new scientific knowledge and conceptualization may result
in eventual benefits to the health and welfare of humans or other animals.
This guideline refers more to research
programs than to individual studies. It is intended to recognize that there
is no such thing as the "definitive study" and that the significance of
any individual experiment, especially when viewed after the fact, is not
always immediately apparent and can be easily trivialized. Accordingly,
a particular experiment must be judged within the context of a research
program as to whether it will contribute in a meaningful way to a systematic
empirical or theoretical base.
An integral part of any research program
is the use of small pilot studies, the results of which are at best suggestive,
but which are important for decisions about directions to proceed, research
design, parameters, etc. The value of such studies is often indirect, and
therefore must be evaluated in the broader context of a research.
This guideline bears also on the problem
of replication or reproducibility of results in psychological research.
Replication is a necessary and desirable aspect of science when it is seen
as a manipulation of a special class of factors (e.g., different laboratories,
different experimenters, different times of the year, etc.), which can
provide new scientific knowledge of value in understanding a phenomenon.
As with the case of pilot studies, replications must be seen within the
broader context of a research program. To the extent that there is a reasonable
expectation that a replication will contribute to new scientific knowledge,
it is consistent with this guideline.
6. Procedures
subjecting animals to pain, stress, privation, or death should be used
only when an acceptable alternative procedure is unavailable.
In psychological research, the subjection
of animals to procedures involving pain, stress, privation, or death occurs
in two broad contexts. The first is when the subject of study is pain,
stress, motivational systems, or aspects of death, all of which are legitimate
and important areas of the discipline. In such a context, there are seldom
realistic alternatives, and the attention of the scientist must focus on
ways of minimizing discomfort. For example, the study of stress must necessarily
involve manipulations that will produce stress; nevertheless, the investigator
must consider ways to minimize the trauma of these manipulations. In the
second context, procedures are employed to induce motivational states that
facilitate the controlled study of phenomena only indirectly related to
the motivational manipulations (for example, learning discrimination, memory,
sensory thresholds, etc.). Under such circumstances, the scientist has
an ethical obligation to consider whether the research objectives could
be met using broad alternatives not involving pain or discomfort.
7. Scientists
should examine methodological and procedural techniques for the purpose
of minimizing discomfort, illness, and pain to animals.
When acceptable alternative procedures
to ones that involve pain or privation are not available, there remains
a responsibility to examine methodologies and procedures that will minimize
discomfort, illness, or pain, and that are consistent with the objectives
of the research. The judgement involved clearly requires considerable knowledge
of the species and its behavioural repertoire, as well as the research
problem. Issues that may arise in considering this guideline include: Is
the species appropriate for the study? Have the motivational systems and
the biological/social needs of the species been assessed so that a reasonable
judgment can be made about the relative discomfort and stress produced
by various potentially painful procedures or different kinds of levels
of privation? Can motivational states in the given species be better controlled
through appetitive motivation (e.g., water or food deprivation) or through
aversive motivation (e.g., mild electric shock)? Have parameters of the
aversive stimuli or the deprivation been selected judiciously so as to
be optimal in light of the behavioural requirements of the research and
the principle of minimizing discomfort? Could lower levels of shock or
privation be used and still produce reliable behaviour? Could a lower level
of aversive stimulation or privation be used, even though more animals
might be required because of less reliable or stable behaviour? In studies
involving food motivation, is privation to a fixed percentage (e.g., 80%)
of ad lib body weight required, or would controlled daily access
to food (e.g., every 23 hours), perhaps in combination with a preferred
incentive, be sufficient?
Manipulations involving surgery can be
problematic with respect to discomfort, and issues that may arise in this
regard include: Is the method of an anesthetization optimal? Are the surgical
procedures sufficiently aseptic to minimize post-operative infection and
other stress? Is an analgesic required during post-operative recovery?
Does the manipulation, such as implantation of a chronic cannula or electrode
assembly, cause irritation, and if so are there ways to minimize this?
Does a physiological or pharmacological manipulation (including administration
of toxins) cause a generalized deterioration of the well-being of the animal,
and if so, how can this be minimized in a manner consistent with the research
objectives?
It is sometimes suggested that one approach
to minimizing discomfort is to minimize the number of animals used in the
research. However, since the detection of treatment effects is against
a background of uncontrollable behavioural variance, one must be careful
to ensure that there is sufficient power to detect those effects when they
are there. Otherwise, the animals that were used would have suffered needlessly.
However, investigators should consider single-subject designs, repeated
measures designs, and other techniques to minimize variance, all of which
could lead to fewer total subjects being required for the research.
8. An experiment
should be terminated whenever it becomes apparent to the scientist or the
institutional ACC, that its continuation will result in injury or suffering
that is incompatible with these guidelines.
With the best of planning, some experiments
simply do not work out as expected. This can be due to various reasons,
such as equipment failure, procedures having unforeseen effects, experimenter
error, or behavioural variance so large as to obliterate any possible treatment
effects. Also, on occasion, new research results become known and may make
ongoing research redundant. In such situations, the experimenters must
give careful consideration to whether it is worthwhile to continue the
work, and do so only if they are satisfied that it is justified in light
of these guidelines.
9. The killing
or other disposition of experimental animals at the termination of the
experiment must be accomplished in a humane manner.
At the end of most experiments in psychology,
experimental animals are killed. This must be done in a humane manner,
as described in this Guide, and in Volume 2 (CCAC, 1984). While
this is obvious and is the accepted practice, problems can arise when research
animals are not killed. For example, releasing trapped animals back into
the wild may or may not be humane depending on the species, its territorial
behaviour, feeding habits, time of year, etc. As noted earlier, some animals
can form human attachments and problems can arise after experiments involving
long-term interaction with them if they are returned to isolated laboratory
housing. The responsibility of the scientist to his/her animals extends
beyond the actual termination of the experiment, and careful consideration
must be given to whether the means of disposing of the experimental animal
is actually humane.
C. INSTRUCTION
10. The decision
to use animals for instructional purposes must be based on a consideration
of educational objectives rather than contributions to new scientific knowledge.
In other respects, ethical practices in the care and treatment of animals
are the same as those that apply to the use of animals in research.
A committee of the British Psychological
Society (BPS) has commented that, "...No psychology undergraduate can for
long remain unaware of the extent to which the empirical basis of much
psychological theory is derived from experimental work with animals. Accordingly,
it is appropriate that, as a matter of course, all undergraduate students
of psychology should receive specific instruction on the issues which arise
from animal experimentation, issues scientific, intellectual, methodological,
practical, and ethical" (BPS, 1979).
The CPA shares the view that instruction
on the use of animals in psychology is desirable and necessary. On occasion,
the actual use of animals in instruction is required to achieve educational
objectives. In such cases, the same general considerations must apply to
animal use in instruction as in research, that is, a balancing of the expected
benefits against the costs, with the benefits seen in terms of advancing
education rather than incrementing scientific knowledge. Clearly, classroom
demonstrations of animal behaviour by their very nature involve phenomena
which may not intrinsically advance scientific knowledge. However, to the
extent that they assist the student's understanding of existing knowledge,
they make a substantive contribution. As contained in the BPS position,
there is an obligation to incorporate material on ethical issues into discussions
of animal use. In this way, instructors can, by example, promote the ethical
use of animals by future scientists and instill in students an appropriate
sensitivity to associated issues.
11. Classroom
demonstrations involving animals should only be used when instructional
objectives cannot be achieved through the use of videotapes, films, or
other alternative methods. Careful consideration should be given to whether
the type of demonstration is warranted by the anticipated instructional
gain.
Videotapes and films represent effective
means of demonstrating principles of animal behaviour and experimentation.
However, there are often advantages of using real animals, not the least
of which is to convey the realism of the phenomenon. In deciding on the
medium of instruction, instructors have an obligation to evaluate carefully
their instructional objectives and
In making the evaluation, the instructor
should be sensitive to the possible trauma that the animals may experience
in being brought into a classroom, and to the possibility of disease transmission
to or from the animal. The instructor must also consider whether the animal
will be used solely for the demonstration, or whether it has already been
used in experimentation, or is breeding stock, or is maintained for the
purpose of demonstrations.
The guideline makes reference to "type
of demonstration" to alert the instructor to the possibly adverse reactions
that a demonstration, live or filmed, may produce in unprepared students.
Procedures which to the naive viewer may appear to involve pain or stress
(e.g., showing animals with chronic cannulae or electrode assemblies, animals
having epileptic seizures, animals being operated on, injected with drugs
or social animals raised in isolation, etc.) are especially problematic.
12. Student
projects involving pain or distress to animals should be undertaken judiciously
and only when the training objectives cannot be achieved in any other way.
Student research projects fall along a
continuum from casual classroom projects at one end, to doctoral dissertation
research (which should contribute to new scientific knowledge) at the other.
The value of such projects is seldom to be found in their making substantive
new contributions to knowledge, but is found in their advancing knowledge
through communication. If students are to acquire the knowledge and expertise
required by these guidelines, it is necessary that they gain experience
in working with animals. Especially in the case of students who show every
indication of embarking on a research-oriented career, that experience
may involve using procedures that involve minimal pain or distress. If
so, the instructor must consider very carefully the appropriateness of
the project and its procedures against its training objectives for the
individual student and the development of student sensibilities towards
animals. Students and instructors are reminded that ACC approval must be
received prior to commencing any project with animals.
These guidelines shall be conspicuously
posted in every laboratory teaching facility and applied setting where
animals are being used.
The CPA recommends that a copy of the guidelines
and this commentary be included in laboratory manuals as well as that selected
sections be posted in all laboratory facilities. It is hoped this will
not be seen as an empty formality, but rather as an invitation for all
laboratory personnel to become acquainted with the ethical process. Like
science itself, ethical procedures are advanced by communication and discussion.
In any situation involving decisions and
judgment, there will, on occasion, be disagreements and misunderstandings.
When these arise in the context of the use of animals in research or instruction
in psychology, they should be resolved as quickly as possible so as not
to impede legitimate research nor to prolong unacceptable procedures. The
well-being of the animal must be a paramount concern. In general, there
are two classes of problems. In the first, there may be allegations by
students, colleagues, or the public that some on-going or completed research
or instruction is inappropriate in light of these guidelines. In this case,
the concerned individual should attempt to work through the ACC of the
institution in which the research is carried out. In the second, individual
psychologists may find their ACC or a granting agency unwilling to approve
some research which they feel is scientifically and ethically warranted.
The CCAC has developed a formal appeal mechanism of which researchers may
take advantage. Part of this mechanism will involve consultation with the
CPA.
D. REFERENCES
ABRAMSON, L.Y. and SELIGMAN, M.E.P. Modelling
psychopathology in the laboratory: History and rationale. In: Maser, J.D.
and Seligman, M.E.P., eds. Psychopathology: experimental models. San Francisco,
CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1977: 1-26.
BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY. Policy statement.
Brit. Psych. Soc. Bull. 1979; 32: 50.
CANADIAN COUNCIL ON ANIMAL CARE. Guide
to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals, Vol. 2, Ottawa, Ont.: CCAC,
1984.
DIENER, E. and CRANDALL, R. Ethics in social
and behavioural research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1978a.
DIENER, E. and CRANDALL, R. Ethics in social
and behavioural research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1978b:
4-5.
HEBB, D.O. Textbook on psychology. 2nd
Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 1966: 19.
SMITH, M.B. Social psychology and human
values. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1969.
SZASZ, T.S. Moral man: A model of man for
humanistic psychology. In: Bugenthal, J.T., ed. Challenges of humanistic
psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
[ Previous Chapter ] [ Table of contents ] [ Next Chapter ]
[ Back to top ]
|
© 2005 CCAC, All Rights Reserved. | Terms and Conditions | Design by Media Wave