Contents

CHAPTER 3: Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Psychological Research 81BOX 3.3MORAL STATUS OF HUMANS AND NONHUMAN ANIMALSEthical decision making often pits opposingphilosophical positions against each other. Thisis clearly seen in the debate over the use of animalsin research. At the center of this debate isthe question of the “moral status” of humans andnonhuman animals. As the Australian philosopherPeter Singer (1990, p. 9) points out, two generallyaccepted moral principles are1 All humans are equal in moral status.2 All humans are of superior moral status tononhuman animals.Thus, Singer continues, “On the basis of theseprinciples, it is commonly held that we should puthuman welfare ahead of the suffering of nonhumananimals; this assumption is reflected in ourtreatment of animals in many areas, includingfarming, hunting, experimentation, and entertainment”(p. 9).Singer, however, does not agree with thesecommonly held views. He argues that “there isno rational ethical justification for always puttinghuman suffering ahead of that of nonhumananimals’’ (p. 9). Unless we appeal to religiousviewpoints (which Singer rejects as a basis formaking decisions in a pluralistic society), thereis, according to Singer, no special moral statusto “being human.” This position has roots in thephilosophical tradition known as utilitarianism,which began with the writings of David Hume(1711–1776) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832),as well as John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) (Rachels,1986). Basically, this viewpoint holds that wheneverwe have choices between alternative actionswe should choose the one that has the bestoverall consequences (produces the most “happiness”)for everyone involved. What matters inthis view is whether the individual in question iscapable of experiencing happiness/unhappiness,pleasure/pain; whether the individual is human ornonhuman is not relevant (Rachels, 1986).What do you think about the moral status ofhumans and animals and its relation to psychologicalresearch?(and occasional emotional demonstrations) directed toward individuals andinstitutions by extremists within the animal activist groups, may deter youngscientists from entering the field of animal research. If this were to occur, the(presently) incurably ill or permanently paralyzed could possibly be deprivedof the hope that can come through scientific research. Clearly, the many issuessurrounding the debate over the relevance of animal research to the humancondition are complex (see Box 3.3). Ulrich (1992) said it well—the discussionof these issues must be approached with “wisdom and balance” (p. 386).REPORTING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH• Investigators attempt to communicate their research findings in peerreviewedscientific journals, and the APA Code of Ethics providesguidelines for this process.• Decisions about who should receive publication credit are based on thescholarly importance of the contribution.• Ethical reporting of research requires recognizing the work of othersby using proper citations and references; failure to do so may result inplagiarism.