‘Using nonhuman animals in psych is problematic’ (25)

• Para 1: useful - groundbreaking insights

  • P: Animal research has provided profound insights into human psychology, especially in areas difficult or unethical to study in humans.

  • E: Harlow’s (1959) work with rhesus monkeys demonstrated that attachment depends more on comfort than feeding. Though unethical by modern standards, the study transformed childcare and institutional practices.

  • E: this shows how animal research can lead to beneficial applications for human welfare. However, the ethical cost was high - the monkeys suffered lasting psychological damage, raising questions about justifiability.

  • L: thus, while animal studies have been highly useful, their value must be weighed carefully against the harm caused to the animals involved
• Para 2: problematic - ethical concerns and speciesism

  • P: a key problem with using animals in psychology is the ethical issue of speciesism - the belief that humans have greater moral worth than animals.

  • E: Peter Singer (1975) argued that using animals in harmful research is no more justifiable than racism or sexism, while Tom Regan (1984) claimed animals have inherent rights not to be used at all.

  • E: these views challenge the moral foundation of animal research. even if humans benefit, the cost to sentient animals may be too great. However, utilitarians argue that if the research prevents greater suffering overall, it can be justified.

  • L: therefore, the usefulness of animal research does not remove the deep ethical problems it raises, making its value a moral grey area
• Para 3: reducing harm - ethical regulations

  • P: ethical concerns are increasingly addressed through strict legal and professional regulations, reducing the potential harm of animal studies

  • E: the UK’s Animals (Scientific procedures) Act (1986) and BPS guidelines require justification of harm, use of anaesthetics, and application of 3 Rs: replace, reduce, refine.

  • E: These measures significantly improve animal welfare. For instance, choosing appropriate species and considering prior experiences improves validity and reduces suffering. However, critics argue that even “refined” suffering is still ethically questionable

  • L: while these safeguards don’t eliminate all ethical issues, they do show that animal research is becoming more humane and responsibly managed.
• Para 4: broader use - animal-assisted therapy (AAT)

  • P: Animals are also used in therapeutic roles, which may benefit humans without causing harm to the animals.

  • E: Friedmann & Son (2009) found that Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT) helped with emotional problems such as schizophrenia and developmental disorders.

  • E: However, Anestis et al (2014) criticised many of these studies for poor methodology - small samples, lack of control groups, and confounding variables like therapist attention. So the effectiveness of AAT is still under debate

  • L: this highlights that while some animal uses in psychology are low-risk and promising, their scientific credibility still needs strengthening
• Conclusion

  In conclusion, using non-human animals in psychology has undeniably led to valuable insights and real-world applications—particularly where human research would be unethical. Nonetheless, serious ethical issues remain. Debates around speciesism, long-term suffering, and questionable generalisability continue to challenge the acceptability of this practice. With improvements in ethical standards and growing exploration of alternatives, the use of animals in psychology is becoming more justifiable, but the debate remains far from settled. Therefore, I agree with the statement to a large extent: animal research is both useful and problematic, and its future use must be approached with caution, responsibility, and continued ethical scrutiny.