The question I am asking this week is one that has caused a debate for quite a substantial amount of time; and I believe if completely justified and non-invasive then animal research could be considered to be ethical.
It comes down to this – there is only a certain limit as to how many drugs etc. can be tested on humans as the implications of the drugs may not be determined as of yet. Therefore in this scenario it would be considered appropriate to test the drugs on animals for the benefit/disadvantage of the human race. Although the obvious argument that animal testing is not appropriate is for cosmetic usage that can put animals at risk for no real benefit for the human race.
From a psychological perspective, Gosling (2001) has found that research on animals has been able to provide valid suggestions as to how the personality of the human mind works. This does not necessarily get put forward by testing drugs on the animals for instance but does test on them to clarify points that had previously been made about the human mind. Furthermore this is a enables psychologist to reinforce their findings.
Harlow (1958) was able to also use animal research in a way in which had applications that could be related to human beings. He studied attachment and found that monkeys would much rather a comfort rather than food and nutrition. These findings were also applicable to humans suggesting that attachment is also highly important as well as food.
Although invasive studying on animals does happen on a regular basis – for drugs etc which can be extremely beneficial to the human race. Countless pieces of research have been able to show that drugs are suitable to use on human as they were on animals.
However the well being of the animal should always be considered when conducting a piece of research and should only be carried out if there is no other alternative option.