Podcast Check

Animal testing has a long history and has been used in various fields, including psychology. However, ethical concerns have led to debates about its use. Arguments against animal testing include the suffering it causes to animals, the availability of alternative methods, the biological differences between animals and humans, and the waste of funding. On the other hand, animal testing is still used because it contributes to scientific knowledge and human health. It has played a crucial role in understanding diseases like COVID-19. The abolition of animal testing could impede medical progress. Animal research has also provided valuable insights in psychology, such as the study on infant bonding in monkeys. However, there are cases where animal testing has led to unnecessary harm, such as underwater trauma in rats and surgical procedures on mice. These cases inform our understanding of the potential psychological impacts of animal testing. Good morning, listeners. I'm Shania, and with me I have four incredible speakers debating today's topic, animal testing. Join me in introducing Izzy, Malaika, Lily and Katie as we explore the intricacies of animal testing and its implications in psychology. But before that, a little historical perspective. Animal testing traces back to the ancient civilizations, evolved into a systematic practice during the scientific revolution of the 17th century. Pioneering experiments by figures like William Harvey and Robert Boyle lay the groundwork for modern biomedical research. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, animal testing expanded rapidly, becoming integral in not only medical practices, but also into the field of psychology, where animals were used to understand behavior, cognition and the nervous system. However, this period also witnessed a parallel rise in ethical concerns and moral implications regarding the welfare of these laboratory animals. The latter half of the 20th century saw a surge in advocacy for animal welfare, accompanied by efforts to develop alternative methods to animal testing. Legislation aimed at minimizing animal use and promoting ethical treatment emerged alongside the advocacy movement. Despite ongoing debates, the principle of replacement, reduction and refinement have become central to shaping the future of animal experimentations in psychology. Today, the debate continues to evolve as scientific advancements and ethical considerations shape the future of animal testing. We ask our speakers today their perspective on animal testing and to raise awareness on its impact within psychology. My first question is directed to Izzy. What are some of the main arguments that have been made against animal testing for psychological research? There is a big debate around the ethics of animal testing for psychological research and whether or not this is outweighed by the successful results it produces. While some believe the outcomes can justify the harm that comes to animals, there are many reasons it is unethical. Obviously, one of the main issues is the inexcusable suffering caused to animals who have no other choice but to endure it. There are many alternative ways to carry out research which does not cause harm and produce the same, if not more effective, results which benefit humans. All of the animals researchers carried out on suffer immense pain, with many being left with long-term problems or even death, which could be avoided altogether. Instead, researchers could use alternative means of research, such as for human disorders, testing on willing humans who are able to consent to the testing being carried out on them, which will likely produce better results. This leads me on to the next issue, which is that while there are many biological similarities between humans and animals, there are many biological differences, which means they will not necessarily react in the same way. This means that many instances do not actually lead to successful treatments that end up being used for humans. The organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, published an article against animal testing, providing evidence to support this. More than 90% of basic scientific discoveries, most of which are from experiments on animals, fail to lead to human treatments. In a recent analysis of rodent behavioural tests on anxiety, researchers found that the vast majority of tests lacked scientific validity and weren't able to predict which drugs would relieve anxiety in humans. This shows how when it came to disorders, human brains function differently to animals, so can never be 100% related to humans, leading to many failed experiments which cause unnecessary harm. Another main issue is the waste of funding. As much as the testing doesn't lead to successful treatments, time, resources and funding is wasted that could be allocated elsewhere for more effective results. For example, it may be more beneficial to give this funding to therapy for humans instead. This way, no money would be wasted as it directly treats humans, and this is more beneficial than medication in many cases. It also does not waste time on research with no positive outcome. Now to the other side of the argument, Malika. If animal testing is such a controversial and debated topic in science, why is it still used? Could there be any potential consequences for abolishing the practice? Animal testing remains a contentious issue in scientific research, despite its long-standing history dating back to 1935, primarily due to ethical concerns and the quest for more humane alternatives. However, its continued use can be attributed to its undeniable contribution to scientific knowledge and human health. Animal testing has played a pivotal role in advancing our understanding of human health, encompassing a wide range of fields from behavioural and biomedical research to drug development. Notably, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, animal testing proved indispensable. Scientists urgently needed to comprehend the novel virus's effects on the human body and brain, as well as to develop potential treatments. Utilising genetically modified mice, rats, fruit flies, zebrafish and large mammals, including primates, researchers were able to study the disease comprehensively. The varied animal models were essential due to the diverse array of symptoms and systems affected by COVID-19, ranging from loss of smell and taste to neurological and psychiatric manifestations, in addition to more traditional flu-like symptoms such as those impacting cardiovascular and respiratory systems. While animal testing offers invaluable insights, there are potential consequences to its abolition. Without animal models, researchers may struggle to replicate complex physiological responses and disease processes accurately. This could impede medical progress, slow the development of treatments and vaccines for diseases like COVID-19 and other ailments that afflict humanity. Consequently, while ethical considerations are crucial, a careful balance must be struck between the welfare of animals and the advancement of scientific knowledge for the betterment of human health. To conclude, whilst animal testing does have its ethical concerns, as scientists, psychologists should also consider the critical intel it provides to improve and expand knowledge on human health. We will now go on to discuss how can animal research on a specific disorder have an effect on animals that makes it so unnecessary and immoral. In spite of arguments against animal testing and how it may not be necessary, it is important to recognise other significant research which has used and produced significant results. For example, Harlow's Monkeys in 1958 researched infant bonding within monkeys. To summarise any variations of the study, the monkeys were separated from their mothers at birth and were given two models of mothers as a replacement, one which provided food and the other which was made out of cloth, which ultimately provided comfort. Overall, the monkeys were spent more time with the cloth replica instead of the mother that provided the food, which suggested that attachment was formed due to security and sensitivity of the caregiver rather than a physical stimulus. Now, this research provided a huge shift in psychology. The views of behaviourism had a heavily dominated field at the time and so by showing that attachment behaviours are so complex that they could not be explained by stimulus responses, it allowed research to focus more on the upbringing of children to improve their relationships and thus led to providing explanations for behaviours considered abnormal. An article by the NSPCC, which is the UK's children charity, explains that attachment is significant for an individual's psychological wellbeing as they grow older. So those who lack attachment suffer consequences such as lack of future relationships and difficulties with their mental health. And from this, you should be able to infer that animal testing has shown to be largely beneficial because it has highlighted not only the importance of forming attachments and parenting, but also understanding subsequent risk factors in child neglect and abuse, which is important for intervention to prevent any economic implications Going back to the idea of PTSD, could you provide examples of how PTSD has been a significant consequence in animal research and how such cases inform our understanding of the potential psychological impacts of animal testing? Underwater trauma on rats has been seen in a study conducted by Moore that had given rise to PTSD in humans. Here, rats are subjected to underwater trauma where they are forcefully submerged in water and showed increased anxiety in the EPM compared to rats that swim without submersion. Being submerged underwater and forced to swim to escape induces significant stress and fear in the rats. This experience can lead to acute distress during the event and potentially long-lasting psychological consequences, including anxiety and fear-related behaviours, similar to those seen in humans with PTSD. Another example is Friedman, who used two mice. One mouse was normal, but the other mouse was hyperphagic. That means it couldn't stop eating. Friedman believed that one of the two mice must have had something biological that the other mouse did not. To test this, he sewed the two mice together, joining their circulation systems. This process is called parabiosis and has many negative effects on the rats. The surgical procedure itself is invasive and carries risks such as infection, tissue damage, and impaired mobility. Meany is another example of a psychologist who used mice to study the effects of childhood distress on their development into adulthood. All the newborn rats in the study were separated from their mother and randomly divided into two groups. One where researchers would stimulate the mother rat by grooming and brushing, and the control group where the newborns were left untreated. The researchers tested the effects of the elevated levels of stress hormones by placing the mice in a pool of milky water and having them find their way to a platform. This study, however, raises concerns on the rats. Separating newborn rats from their mothers can induce stress and anxiety in both the mothers and the pups. This separation disrupts natural maternal care and can lead to adverse effects on the rats' psychological well-being. To conclude and summarize our final arguments, looking at both sides of this very controversial topic, it can be argued that animal testing is necessary to an extent just because of the medical advancements made as well as the useful insights into behaviour that animal testing has provided. However, why do we as a species get to use animals to our advantage? Some people may argue that we shouldn't be able to use animals because, well, we cannot get consent. But also, why do we get to choose just because we are a more advanced species? Does that make it okay? Introducing the idea of human testing, it comes with huge moral dilemmas. The human making a choice about what humans could be tested on develops many more moral issues. For example, what group of people do we test on? Would we test on animals? What crimes would make someone qualify to be tested on for research? By using animal testing, it eliminates the complexity and it's very efficient and very effective for humans to be able to use animals for advantage. A prime example, as we mentioned earlier on, coming back to the whole idea of the COVID-19 pandemic, using animals has allowed us to develop our understanding of the disease, which is beneficial to the entire population and therefore may be justified, whereas using animals to test out the latest lip kit, not so much. Animal testing covers such a large area, so instead of eliminating the idea of animal testing, further guidelines could be developed that animal usage could be monitored. For example, only using non-invasive methods, which would allow research to still occur, but it could be argued whether we have so many advancements with these boundaries in place that limit animal testing. If we come back to the main issues of animal testing that were discussed earlier, the amount of funding that is put into animal testing really limits its strength. Should the money that is used towards animal testing be put towards helping humans instead of injecting the animals that might not even replicate the results that have been found in humans? Overall, we conclude that animal testing is necessary in research because it benefits the human population. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. However, due to its highly immoral nature, it is important to recognize this, and that animal testing should be avoided when there are other more ethical opportunities, and these should be further explored when possible. Thank you for listening to our podcast on this highly controversial topic of animal testing. What do you think? Do you think animal testing is necessary? Thank you for listening to our podcast on this highly controversial topic of animal testing. What do you think? Do you think animal testing is necessary?