Animal Research Article: Second Thoughts Of An Animal Experiment

An article written by an animal researcher and psychology professor discusses the lack of ethical treatment towards primates in research labs. The author of Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher, John P. Gluck, justified the unethical treatment of primates by believing that scientific advancements are superior to the harm the primates experienced. One day a student of his presented a dissertation about a female rhesus monkey who unexpectedly passed away. The dissertation caused Gluck to feel that the animals he caused much harm to were more than objects used to create data. Although he tried to continually justify his actions, he eventually felt guilty and decided that the primates deserve to be handled ethically. Throughout the article,

Gluck worked in the field of psychology and conducted research on animals for years; therefore, he is more credible than someone who has never experienced an animal research lab. He states that the descriptions of experiments in scientific publications are often altered. The language is purposely changed in order to hide the extent of the emotional and physical pain that the animal subjects experience in the research labs. Gluck argues that if the research someone is conducting needs to be censored, than that person must be doing unethical actions. The deductive argument would begin with the implication that altering research is unethical, and many animal testing experiment descriptions are altered, therefore altered animal research is unethical. This argument strongly connects to the conclusion that the federal government should create an ethical code for animal research so that unethical treatment of animals will no longer occur. Not every study that uses animals as subjects leads to immoral treatment of those animals, but the argument clearly states that if the descriptions should be expurgated, then there is an insinuation that unethical behavior is most likely

Gluck mentions that there are many ethical principles researchers must follow when conducting research on humans, but no document exists for primates. He states that research in cognitive ethology and neuroscience suggests that we underestimate animals’ mental complexity and pain sensitivity. However, if a human is the subject then the researchers are much more cautious. Due to the lack of acknowledging animals’ suffrage, Gluck’s argument is that our moral universe changes. Primates feel pain similar to humans. Humans rely on the ethical code of conduct during research. There is no ethical code of conduct for primates even though they feel pain just as humans do; therefore, our moral universe changes. The conclusion considering our change in morals is an inductive leap rather than a necessary