Although UK Law heavily regulates animal testing and suggests using other means if possible, it also requires it within the medical world. It states that any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal and one of these must be a large non-rodent. This is so any obscene side effects and be seen and obliterated until being tested on humans. Although a reaction of a human to a drug will be slightly different to a mammals it would be very similar.
But can the same be said about psychological experiments?
Can we use animals in psychological research and apply the results to humans?
In 1958, Harry Harlow devised an experiment to try and prove the general assumption that the attachment made between new borns and their mothers was one based on the need for the infant to obtain food, water and to avoid pain was wrong. He did this by removing rhesus monkeys from their mothers just a few hours after birth and giving them a choice between a wire ‘mother’ that had a bottle of milk attached to it, or a soft mother made terrycloth but which provided no food. The monkeys spend significantly more time with the mother made of terry cloth than the one made of wire sometimes even going without food in order to stay with the comforting ‘mother’.
“These data make it obvious that contact comfort is a variable of overwhelming importance in the development of affectional response, whereas lactation is a variable of negligible importance,” Harlow explained (1958).
Harlow’s study does indeed show that contact comfort is very important in early life, but it only shows us that this is true in Rhesus monkeys. Although many assume it would also apply to humans as humans and monkeys have been proven to be remarkably similar in the past, is assuming ever really enough in the world of psychology? If psychology claims to be a science than surely such statements should be proven, not just assumed.
It is of course impossible to prove the same is true of human infants while following ethical guide lines so many would argue that as monkeys are the closest we can test, we have no choice but to assume.
There is also the implication of the trauma caused to the monkeys tested on. Being removed from their mother at such a young age is traumatic enough but when the surrogate mothers were removed the monkeys displayed signs of great distress including rocking, screaming and freezing up.
This experiment did change, for the better, the way child care and adoption were handled within social services which would promote some to say that the ends justified the means.
But i ask you this, if the experiment cannot prove that the same is true of humans which is what it sought to prove in the first place, then does that mean that those monkeys were put under the stress of being removed from any physical contact with a living thing hours after birth for absolutely no reason? Let alone the distress that must have been experienced by the mothers of these monkeys at having their new offspring taken away.
If results obtained from animals cannot be applied to humans and it causes the animals involved irreversible damage, is it ever appropriate to use animals in psychological research?
libbyayres 
A very interesting blog especially as it was so different to the others written in our group. Psychology tests shouldn’t be undertaken upon animals as the way they react to certain situations in experiments aren’t the same as humans. Although there have been successful Psychology experiments on animals due to the closeness of humans to primates the animals can’t be tested on to compare psychological processes within the human mind with that of the primate mind.
What is your evidence for this?
If we evolved from apes, surely our brain functions would be very similar even if they differed a little. But if they do have the same basic brain functions as us why should they be put in stressful, traumatic situations? just because they can not stand up for themselves or speak out? It is clear, if they do think like us it is unethical to treat them in such a manner as it is to treat other humans like this, and if they don’t we are putting helpless creatures in these situations for no reason whatsoever which is sickening.
Very nice blog Libby. Although for the most part there is no evidence of major trauma to primates in psychological experiments; especially not in this day and age. The fact that we still use apes as part of psychological research proves that on some account the minor trauma that might arise from an experiment is not enough to warrant not using them for the benefit of human research. I do however agree Libby that we should not be using apes from a moral point of view. And can we really generalise to human? Apes are the closest to humans in the respects of brian function but we are much more evolved beings and may act differently to a situation to an ape.
Great blog Libby. As far as I know, and I may be making an uneducated statement here, I have no personal recollection of any psychological experiment that has been conducted in the past that has gone on to have a significant impact on human psychology. As you’ve noted, the field of psychology can’t depend entirely on assumptions. Reliable evidence is required to show that the results can improve living conditions for humans, and not Rhesus monkeys etc. Therefore, I don’t think it’s appropriate, or even relevant, to conduct psychological research on animals.
I would argue that the assumption that evidence can be useful IS enough in the field of Psychology, even at the risk to harm to animals.. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, however, without trying and testing things such as this you can never know whether useful results can be obtained or not. I WOULD agree that if more could have been done to figure out if the experiment was useful for humans, it should have been, however I disagree with the overriding principle of your argument that it is not ok to sometimes make assumptions, because sometimes these studies can yield results which would help endless generations of human beings, and that chance is therefore worth considering using animals for potentially harming experiments (within carefully considered reason of course, if the animal suffers too much it is never ok)