The use of nonhumans in research does not only violate the ethical conduct of the animal codes but contradicts the understanding of the differences between humans and nonhuman.

Assignment Brief

Theorists

Requirements for the Assignment

• considering the theory which you have read in this article, write why you agree with Article / 500 words

Assignment should be written with reference to criminal, judicial psychology, but adapted to the main topic and fully answer all question in the article.

• be sure to support any claims and/or assumptions you make using the academic literature you researched.
• in the end of this Assignment, you must add minimum 2 question for each article and to give a chance a writer of this Article to reply.

Article

The use of nonhumans in research does not only violate the ethical conduct of the animal codes but contradicts the understanding of the differences between humans and nonhuman. For example, the study of the mammalian brain in psychology and neuroscience differs mostly in the cortical level (Bedwell, 2016), most findings from animal research to human doubles the contradictions especially in psychology when it relates to issues such as executive functions. The question that has not been adequately addressed is to what extent is the efficacy of rodent research finding to a human reliable? Hence the prefrontal cortex (PFC) of humans and those of nonhumans share less similarity (Bedwell, 2016). Animals are not humans, and they vary in different ways. So their experiment should be wholly for animal kingdom and not for humans for instance, medications used in the treatment of brain disorders which were efficiently applied on mice (Kaufman, 2018) failed their trials on humans, depicting that there is no match for these mammals hence Guoping Feng a professor of neuroscience opined that rodents are not humans and it is not their fault.

For sure the benefits of animal research cannot be ruled out, through animal research scientists have come up with many modern ways of handling diseases. Significant medical advances have been attributed to the result of successful animal research (Bedwell, 2016) such as the insulin for diabetics, vaccinations, and asthma inhalers. Over 25 million animals are used for experimentations, and many breakthroughs have come out of these experiments all to the glory of animal research and trials (Lombardo, 2015). Except for medical benefits, animal research and experimentations have benefited humans through behaviourism approach of Pavlov’s in classical condition (Peel, 2005) where the dog experiment revealed the stimulus-response which is being applied on human beings today.

It will be proper to point out that the bone of contention here is not to protect animals from violation of their rights as argued by many critiques concerning cruel acts meted on animals. Animals have no rights to violate (Cohen, 1986). This work is concerned with the suitability of nonhuman research application on humans. However, that animals possess no rights does not permit humans to inflict harm on nonhumans (Cohen, 1986), animals suffer, and therefore there is no reason to make them suffer unnecessarily.

Sample Answer

Response: Evaluating the Use of Nonhuman Animals in Behavioural Research

The article presents a compelling critique of the ethical and scientific implications of using nonhuman animals in psychological research. I agree with the article’s argument that while animal research has contributed to scientific progress, it often fails to produce reliable results when applied to humans, especially in complex fields such as psychology and neuroscience.

One of the main points in the article is the structural and functional difference between human and nonhuman brains, particularly at the cortical level. This is especially relevant in behavioural and cognitive psychology, where the executive functions governed by the prefrontal cortex play a crucial role. Bedwell (2016) highlights that findings from rodent models often lack generalisability to humans because of these neuroanatomical differences. This point is essential in forensic psychology and the criminal justice system, where understanding executive functions can influence legal responsibility, risk assessments, and rehabilitative approaches. Using flawed models based on nonhuman research could lead to misguided interventions or diagnostic errors in criminal behaviour assessment.

Furthermore, the article rightly questions the translational reliability of findings from animal studies. As Kaufman (2018) notes, many drugs that work in rodents fail in human trials. This issue is particularly significant when researching the neurobiological basis of criminal behaviour. For instance, interventions designed to alter impulsivity or aggression, traits often examined in forensic contexts, may be ineffective if developed solely on the basis of nonhuman studies. In such sensitive areas, flawed assumptions can lead to ineffective or even harmful policies and treatments within the judicial system.

Despite these limitations, I also agree with the article’s recognition that animal research has made significant contributions to behavioural theories. For example, Pavlov’s classical conditioning, developed through animal studies, laid the groundwork for behaviourism, which remains influential in criminal rehabilitation strategies such as behaviour modification programs. Similarly, Skinner’s operant conditioning, also based on animal models, has been applied in correctional psychology to manage inmate behaviour through reinforcement techniques.

Continued...