Psychologist Perspective on Research Involving Animal and Human Subjects

Introduction

American Psychological Association [APA] approximates that about 90% of all animal subjects used in psychological animal experiments use rodents or birds.

Research Involving Human Subjects

In this case, the IRB review the psychologist research proposals involving human participants to ascertain that they are within the stipulated guidelines. The IRB approves the use of the human subjects for the research in the event they establish that the proposals are within the safety measures for human participants. However, it is not certain whether the use of IRB reviews guarantees safety to the human subjects. Therefore, alternative methods should be designed, thus ensuring no harm whatsoever is caused to human subjects.

Research on Animal Subjects

The committee is mandated with ascertaining that all research proposals involve the humane handling of animal subjects. Besides, the committee performs semi-annual investigations of all animal research centers to confirm that the research guidelines are used. In this case, they guarantee that no animal research task can be continued without the committee’s mandates.

Discussion

The ‘benefits arguments’ were mostly perceived satisfactory to validate AR. Nevertheless, when challenged with counterarguments directing towards the alternative experimentations, most responses were not as persuaded as compared to the opening argument though majority were equally convinced in the use of alternative methods in its entirety. Moreover, counterarguments proposing that it is indistinct why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not relate to using humans in the identical health experiments were satisfying to about half of the public and one third of medical students.

Conclusion

In essence, when faced with arguments concerning the use of animal subjects in research, most respondents are of the notion that they should be used as long as they benefit the human beings in health research. However, when faced with counterarguments about alternative methods of research and the use of human subjects as alternative for animal subjects if they were to offer benefits to humans, it was concluded that most respondent agreed on alternative experiments.

References

Joffe, A., Bara, M., Anton, N., & Nobis, N. (2016). The ethics of animal research: A SURVEY OF THE PUBLIC AND SCIENTISTS IN NORTH AMERICA. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(17), 1-12. Web.

Spielman, R (2014). Psychology (pp. 35–60). Houston, Texas: Rice University, 2016.