Animals in Psychology - Major Scientific Concepts - Essay Example

Animals in Psychology - Major Scientific Concepts Introduction Charles Darwin’s Origins of the Species and his theory of evolution suggesting that mankind evolved from animals contributed to psychological studies in which animals are experimented on as a means of understanding a number of behavioural and cognitive functions. The medical profession has always experimented on animals. As early as 520, a physician in Southern Italy in dissecting an animal because it was unacceptable to dissect human beings, ‘discovered the optic nerve’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 14). In general psychologists and other scientists recognized that much of human nature could be understood through experimentation with animals. Animals, while similar to human beings in many respects, were also different in that they were perceived as devoid of self-awareness, perception, pleasure and so on (Hunt, 1993). Thus animals could be experimented on for the sake of gaining knowledge of human nature and at the same time, such experimentation could be conducted guilt-free. This essay examines the scientific role of animals in psychology. In this regard, this paper is divided into three main parts. The first part of this paper discusses major scientific concepts. The second part of this paper discusses how the field of psychology reinforces the idea that meaningful differences between humans and animals justify their being treated differently. The final part of this paper discusses the contradiction between how animals are treated in modern society and our understanding of the similarities between humans and animals. Major Scientific Concepts Determinism is a behaviorist approach to researching, understanding and explaining human behaviour. Deterministic research assumes that human behaviour and learning is conditioned by environmental factors and therefore suggest that free will is minimal. However, as Hunt (1993) notes, if human behaviour could be explained in terms of deterministic reasoning, mankind would be expected to be passive and predictable. Regardless, deterministic researchers believed that humans and animals are conditioned and learn in vastly similar ones. Therefore animals were appropriate scientific subjects in experimental or scientific psychological research. Deterministic researchers usually rely on animal research, despite their belief that animals and human beings learn and adapt similarly. This similarity appears to place animals and human beings on an equal footing in terms of sensitivity and intelligence and thus experimenting on animals is exploitive. However, animals are distinguished from human beings since animals do not think and rationalize so that the results of a deterministic study would be more reliable using animals. Deterministic researchers could control the environment and conditions in a laboratory setting and animals would respond naturally to these conditions, wholly unaware that they are experimental subjects. Human beings would know that they are experimental subjects and know that the environment and conditions are manipulated by a human hand and might not respond naturally. Empiricism which was founded by John Locke, holds that human beings are born with a blank mind and all learning occurs through the senses and through experience. Thus all scientific data is observable and measurable. Thus experiments are central to the empiricists approach to collecting and analysing scientific data. For example, Franz Joseph Gall, a German neurophysiologist embraced the phrenology theory which dictates that the shape of the skull reflected how the brain was developed and thus predicted ‘character and mental abilities’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 113). Through animal dissections, Gall came to the conclusion that humans were more intelligent than animals because the cortex of the human brains was larger than that of animals. Pierre Flourens, French physiologist tested Gall’s theory by removing parts of the cortex of several animals and observing their behaviour afterward. Flourens discovered that the more cortex removed from animals the ‘more inert’ the animal became (Hunt, 1993, p. 116). Flourens experimented with animals in attempting to determine whether or not certain parts of the brain dictated ‘psychological functions’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 116). Flourens used birds, dogs and rabbits in his experiments, removing parts of their brain and then helped the animals recover so that he could observe how they behaved once certain parts of their brains were removed (Hunt, 1993). Reductionism refers to theories that assume that intellect and behaviour are informed by a number of factors. In order to understand how the brain works it is necessary to understand how each of its constituent parts interact with one another to create a perception, response and so on (Hunt, 1993). Reductionists would therefore assume that experiments with rats would reveal how the sum of these parts would function to solve problems and this would offer some insight into the cognitive functioning of human beings (Hunt, 1993). Dualism consist of two separate views of the existence of the body and the mind. The Descartes dualism theory assumes that the mind and the body are two separate and independently functioning elements. Cartesian dualism assumes that the mind and the body function together to influence one another. Descartes’ dualism theory can be seen as the most instructive with regards to why it was acceptable to experiment on animals for psychological science. According to Descartes, all animals, including human beings were reflexive. However, human beings could be distinguished from non-human animals in that human beings engaged memory, experiences, thinking and emotions while non-human animals were more mechanical in their interaction with the outside world (Hunt, 1993). Differences Between Animals and Human Beings that Justify Treating Animals Differently According to Hunt (1993) if one were to observe animals’ behaviour and interaction, one would easily appreciate the differences between animals and human beings. Animals’ behaviour comes across as entirely curious compared to that of human beings. For example, a female muskrat might be observed ‘uttering anguished yelps’ and ‘swimming desperately’ while a ‘male muskrat paddles furiously after her’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 553). There is no consistency in the female muskrats’ behaviour. As Hunt (1993) states, the male muskrat might ‘catch her’ or ‘perhaps she invariably allows him to’ (p. 553). Likewise, a male sea gull might be observed ‘furiously chasing away a female gull who was sidling up’ hoping that the male seagull might share a ‘bit of the crab he is pecking at’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 553). However, in a week, the male seagull might ‘allow’ the female seagull to ‘snatch a piece’ and ‘a week or so after than actually put a morsel into her beak’ and in a few days ‘he will mount her, with her acquiescence’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 553). Hunt (1993) notes of these observed animal behaviours: As far as one can tell, these creatures never wonder why the other acts as he or she does or why they themselves act as they do. It is only human beings who ask ‘Why do we do what we do? – perhaps the most important question we ever ask ourselves, and the fundamental question of psychology (p. 553). In other words, animals appear to make unconscious decisions or rather they do not make decisions at all, but respond unconsciously to their environment or in a way that is purely reflexive. Human beings on the other hand are more probative and make conscious, and typically rational decisions informed by their environment, stimuli and look into the future and consider the consequences of their responses or their actions. Animals on the other hand appear to respond instinctively or by reflex action. Descartes provides some insight into the conceptual differences between human beings and animals that might explain why it was acceptable to treat animals differently than human beings and therefore justify experimenting with animals for scientific or psychological research purposes. According to Descartes, although animals experienced pain just as human beings did, animals did not have desires and thoughts about pain or anything else. Such a creature could not or would not have the desire for pain to end. Moreover, animals did not cultivate beliefs and therefore have no opinions about the rights or wrongs of experimentation in which they were subjects. I might be argued however, that animals also have desire as observed by the male seagull’s apparent pursuit of the female seagull. However, it is the conscious thought invoked to control desires. In Descartes’ dualism theory, it is the interaction between the body and the soul that distinguishes human beings from animals. The body feels desires and the soul intervenes to control how those desires are pursued. Animals have no such conscious thoughts and will simply and blindly pursue desires. Human beings on the other hand, think things over, plan and rationalise. Some human beings however might give into raw desire and in doing so act soullessly or like animals (Hunt, 1993). Put another way, human beings either have the ‘reason’ and/or ‘will’ to control their desires, whereas animals do not (Hunt, 1993, p. 72). When mankind does not have the ‘reason’ and/or ‘will’ to control their desires and emotions, psychology can help human beings to exercise reason and to have the will to control desires and emotions. For example, Hunt (1993) in explaining Descartes theory of dualism states: The body thus engenders in the soul such passions as love, hatred, fear and desire. The soul consciously considers each passion and freely wills to act in response to it – or if it deems the passion undesirable to ignore it (p. 72). This technique is not always possible in human beings and never possible with animals. Animals instinctively respond to desire without thought or reflection. In some human beings a process occurs where the physical desire is too strong to be overridden by the soul. This is because in some cases, ‘very intense passions may produce commotions of the animal spirits that override the soul’s control of the pineal gland,’ and in doing so elicit ‘responses contrary to the soul’s judgment and will’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 72). Animals have no such judgment and will and thus there is no conflicts between the body and the mind (Hunt, 1993). Pet owners however, may disagree with this distinction between human beings and animals. Pets have been known to exhibit control and judgment. This is observed through obedience training and competitions where animals are responsive to commands that reflect exercising judgment and will and at the same time controlling behaviour. However, this might be consistent with Descartes’ contention that animals are mechanical in nature in that they do learn by repetition and by reflex actions. Animals also have survival instincts and therefore when a pet is trained to be obedient, this can be seen as consistent with animalistic survival instincts. Of course this kind of survival instinct was observed in laboratory rats who were presented with three paths toward food in a labyrinth. The rats eventually figured out the shortest route toward their food through repetition (Hunt, 1993). Essentially, the inferiority of animals’ cognitive processes compared to human beings establishes a hierarchy in the living world with human beings sitting at the top of the hierarchal order. Human beings in asserting their superiority over animals have killed animals for food from the beginning of time. Thus, the idea of experimenting on animals does not seem that far off from the idea of killing animals for food. Each objective has an outcome that is beneficial to human beings. The obvious outcome in slaying animals for food is for the survival of human beings. Likewise, the obvious outcome in using animals for research is for the benefit of human beings in terms of survival and treatment of a variety of physical and mental disorders and maladies. Since animals do not have the reasoning and emotional control capacities that human being have, human beings are justified in treating animals differently than they treat human beings. For instance, if an animal was treated in the same way as human beings were, animals would be allowed to freely walk the streets and go in and out of public buildings unrestrained. This could lead to chaos and create a health and safety threat to the public. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between human beings and animals in significant ways. One way is the denial of freedom and rights of access and this invariably means that human beings can use animals for food and for experiments and can decide whether or not they want to respect the life of animals. In other words, the way that human beings treat animals is a decision that human beings make. Animals are devoid of reasoning and judgment and are therefore incapable of making that decision. Similarities Between Human Beings and Animals and Different Treatment of Animals Psychologists and other scientists obviously believe that animals and human beings are alike in significant ways, otherwise they would not experiment on animals as a means of obtaining information that is transferrable to human beings. For example, although Descartes claimed that animals were mechanical in nature and devoid of judgment and reasoning, he did not deny that their physical systems were similar to human beings. Descartes conducted a number of dissections on animals with a view to understanding the brain and its physical connection to the remainder of the body (Hunt, 1993). What is perhaps more puzzling is that psychologist claim that by observing how animals learn in some conditions and environments would help to shed light on how human beings learned in similar conditions and environments. This is because, animals and human beings learned in vastly similar ways. Yet, today as we gain a more informed perspective on animals as manifested by animal rights, we do treat animals differently in the modern age. Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions of Man and Animals appear to present animals and human beings as capable of exhibiting similar emotions. Emotions are expressed by animals and human beings as a way to propel ‘actions’ and ‘increase a creature’s chances of survival’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 555). For example: Fear, anger, and sexual excitement produce, respectively, escape behaviour, counterattacks on any enemy, and the propagation of the species (Hunt, 1993, p. 555). Emotions exhibited by human beings are inherited from or mirrors ‘their animal precursors’ and have ‘similar values and expressions’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 555). The wolf’s ‘baring of the fangs’ is the human being’s ‘sneer’ and the animal’s ‘bristling’ of its hair ‘in anger or fear’ so as to give the impression that it is larger than it actually is, ‘becomes the angry human’s hair standing on end outthrust chest, and aggressive stance’ (Hunt, 1993, p. 555). Recognising the similarities in animals and human beings, the question is therefore, why we treat animals differently in the modern age. The obvious answer is that as much as things may have changed in relation to our understanding of animals and respect for their rights, nothing has changed in the hierarchy of the living world. Human beings continue to remain at the top of the natural world’s hierarchy. Animals have only acquired rights and understanding because human beings have decided to confer those rights and understanding on them. If anything, human beings need for scientific research for the purpose of finding cures and treatment for a variety of mental and physical diseases are more important than any other time in mankind’s existence. For example, the emergence of AIDS and a variety of deadly diseases transferred from animals to human beings require urgent investigation for the purpose of saving lives and preventing epidemics that threaten human existence. Thus, today, human beings have fewer choices with respect to identifying the causes of diseases and the treatment of diseases. The choices are narrowed as a result of the gravity of the new and emerging diseases. Treatment have to be tested before administering them to human beings, otherwise, human beings would become guinea pigs. Since animals are similar to human beings in terms of physical responses to treatment, it makes sense that new medications and vaccinations are tested on animals prior to administering and approving them for use on human beings. Likewise, the need for food sources is increasing as the earth’s resources are becoming more depleted and the world’s human population continues to grow. Although animals are similar to human beings they provide a valuable food source and if animals were left out of the food chain, it would be at the cost of human lives and safety. As psychologists and philosophers such as Descartes claim, animals do not have conscious thought and judgment. Despite their physical similarities to human beings, they are unable to control themselves in a way that is proportionate to the need for social order. Even where human beings adopt pets, they do not treat them the same way that they treat their human family members. When animals are pets they are treated much differently as a means of establishing and maintaining order. If animals, including pets, were permitted to self-regulate, the world would be entirely chaotic and human life and safety would be put at risk. It is because, animals are similar to human beings and because they are incapable of judgment and thought, that they are valuable for scientific research without the need to sacrifice human life and safety. Conclusion Animals have always been a valuable source of information for the advancement of human knowledge, health and safety. In this regard, animals have always been used for food, research and as companions and even for entertainment purposes. In other words, human beings’ relationship with animals is complex. Nevertheless, psychologists and scientists have experimented on animals for a long time and in doing so have helped us to understand more about the human mind and have identified appropriate cures and treatment for a variety of physical and mental disorders and diseases. This is because animals are similar to human beings and at the same time different. Animals are similar to human beings in that they have physical constituents that function in much the same way as human beings’ physical constituents. For example, the animal’s brain is connected to a spinal cord just as the human being’s brain is connected to the spinal cord. At the same time, animals do not think things through and pass judgment as human beings do. Therefore animals have no expectations about their rights in a laboratory. Moreover, the same justifications that can be made for mankind’s right to kill and eat animals for survival, are available for mankind’s right to experiment on animal for the advancement of science and psychology. Works Cited Hunt, Morton (1993). The Story of Psychology. New York, NY: Random House. Read More