Why it is morally, scientifically, and ethically wrong

The Use of Animals in Psychological Testing

Colleen Gannon

Mary Kate Mulry

http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp

History of animals in testing

Are we that different?

Animal physiologyAnimal moralityCounterargument Class activityAPA code of ethicsAlternatives to

testingDiscussion

Our presentation

1859- Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

1876-Cruelty to Animals Act passed in G.B.

1890- Ivan Pavlov’s Behaviorism Experiments

1966- US passes Animal Welfare Act

1975- Peter Singer publishes Animal Liberation

History of Animal Testing

Cognitive ConsciousnessThe capacity of all organisms which have

nervous systems for self acknowledgmentIn some way or another animals with a nervous

system will respond to noxious stimuliStress?

Evolution: How did we become who we are?Ability to assess others (Chimpanzees)Cooperative communication (dogs)Animal Morality

How different are we?

“In essence, there is no such thing as a humane animal experiment”Routine procedures terrifying

Handling, blood collection, force feeding

Blood draws, stomach tubes

Creates fear, panic

Health risks

Data contaminated

“More Humane Today”?Stress in animals

–Dr. Jonathon Balcombe, Ph.D., independent animal behavior research scientist, author, and lecturer.

Social Isolation

Strenuous work

Invasive tests

Dmitri Belyaev’s foxes

Environment: What are we creating?

Animal models are DIFFERENT than humans!“The response to medications can vary widely

between breeds of the same species…”Drug testing on animals:

Predict fewer side-effects than a coin toss9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests fail

human tests“Side effects of prescription medicines - all

tested for safety on animals before they can be administered to humans - are now the fourth biggest killer in the western world.”

Animal Physiology

Benefits?

- Hasn’t it helped us in the past?

- Tested for many years

- Polio Vaccine- Could have made

these discoveries by other means

- Advancements in technology

- How much do we waste on ineffective tests?

What about the Polio vaccine?- Animal Research actually postponed the development of the Polio vaccine!- Must determine where the infection enters- Ignored human data for monkey data- A ‘vaccine’ was developed- Autopsies tests disproved the nasal theory!- John Enders discovery of tissue growth

What about penicillin?- Discovery in Petri dish- Tested on rabbits: DID NOT WORK

- Set aside for a decade-Finally tested on humans!

Can it help us with other diseases?-“The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in -humans.”

Speciesism- the prejudice that favors one’s own species over every other.

Richard Ryder (1970) Peter Singer (1975)

BASIC principles of equalityMoral right- not a legal debateRights not exactly the same

Capacity for sufferingAsking the right questionCan they…

Reason? Talk? Suffer?

Animal Morality

Harry Harlow’s Study on Rhesus Monkeys

The Other Side…

“Humans are of far greater value than animals, and the result of not using animals for medical experimentation would be greater human suffering”

Carl Cohen

“I am apt to suspect the animals to be naturally inferior to humans…. There is no ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences.”

David Hume

Experts in the field say…

"What good does it do you to test something (a vaccine) in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years." (1)

"I cannot recall a single instance where my clinical judgment was even remotely influenced by the results of a psychological study using animals as subjects or 'models.' " (2)

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." (3)

The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25% (4)

Scenario 1Part 1:You have the chance to cure Alzheimer’s Disease! At least, potentially... You have been selected because your mannerisms and genetic make-up most closely resemble those of the patients who suffer from this disease. In order to observe your brain functions, you will have to have a surgery to have electrodes placed. Brain surgery is high risk, yes- but the scientists may be able to find the cause of Alzheimer's .

Part 2:The scientist think they have found the origin of the disease. They have now created a drug which they hope will stop Alzheimer’s once and for all. Once again, they want you to be their test subject; this time, to see if the drug is effective. Sure, you are not exactly the same as those suffering from the disease…but you are as close as they can get without testing the drug on the patients directly. The scientists suppose your reaction has about a 25% chance of predicting the reaction. No one knows the risks of the drug at this time.

Scenario 2

Now pretend there is a new species on earth. This new species is similar to us, except more advanced. They have emotional capacity like us; yet, they are able to store and retrieve information like computers. Physiologically they are similar to us as well. This advanced species is now experiencing an outbreak of a new disease and thousands of them are losing their lives. The diseases is spreading at an alarming rate. This species would like to use us, humans, for experiments to try to find the cause and cure for this horrible disease. Since we are physiologically similar to them, there is a chance our reactions and experiences to this disease and its treatments will be similar to theirs- but, chances are our bodies will react differently. They do no want to use themselves for the initial trials because they do not want to accidentally cause their kind more harm in the process of finding a cure. Using us, they believe, makes more since because we are not as advanced and therefore our lives are not as valuable. This way they could at least see some reactions of the drug/disease before testing it on themselves.

A. Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal state and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.

B. Psychologists are responsible for animals comfort, health, and humane treatment.

C. Researchers must have working knowledge of how to work with animals

D. Reasonable efforts made to minimize harm of animal

APA Code of Ethics*

Reduction

Replacement

Refinement*Adapted from December 2002 edition of American Psychologist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/may/05/highereducation.uk

Alternatives to testing

•John’s Hopkins Research Center (CAAT) 1981•FRAME

•"Synthetic skin," called Corrositex

•Computer modeling

•Improved statistical design*

•The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)*

•Human Studies

adapted from: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/resources/faqs.html

MORE

ACCURATE

MORE

HUMANE

LESS

EXPENSIVE

Is using animals in testing for “the greater good” of all?

Compare and contrast “speciesism” to racism or sexism. How are they similar, and how are they different?

Class discussion

Conclusion

Archibald, K. (2006, May 5) It’s time to test the testers. Guardian. retrieved fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/may/05/highereducation.uk

Carlson, N.R. (2007). Physiology of behavior (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Doctors Speak Out Against Animal Testing. http://www.ohsukillsprimates.com/quotes.htm

Gartner, J. (2005). Vioxx suit faults animal tests. Wired News. http://www.wired.com/print/medtech/health/news/2005/07/68260

Hare, B. (2007).  From nonhuman to human mind: What changed and why.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 60-64.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default.aspx

News Medical. Net. (December, 2004). Research animals experience severe stress response at slightest contact with researchers. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/12/28/7048.aspx?page=2

Pellicer, F. (2007). Bioethical guidelines for the study of chronic pain in animals: A paradox. Salud Mental, 30(6), 20-24

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/DrugsSaferWithNoTests.htm

  http://www.redorbit.com/news/video/health/4/animal_testing_progress_or_pain/25899/ (this one is the video)

References