The method of experimentation is of great significance for multiple fields of psychology, especially for the behaviorist branch. When learning the patterns in behavior and neurobiological aspects of psychological development, researchers attend to animals as available and controllable experiment participants. The overall domain of findings in psychology and other naturalistic sciences has been constructed by means of using animals. Despite the beneficial contribution to scientific development, the use of animals by psychologists is differently perceived by the proponents and opponents of such a practice.
When objecting to using animals instead of humans in psychological experimentation, people claim that animals should not be subject to harmful procedures. Since animals are captivated and deprived of freedom in the research setting, their rights are violated. Another claim presented by the opponents of using animals in psychological research is that the pain and suffering caused to animals in the course of some procedures is inhumane and should not be directed at animals only for the reason they are not humans.
On the other hand, the supporters of animal use in experimentation justify their opinions by the benefits of the since animals are easy to control, which is critically important for the credibility of findings. Indeed, one might control what an animal eats, where it lives, and how it spends time to obtain full picture pertinent to a study. Also, the ethical considerations contribute to the justification of the proponents’ views. Since humans cannot be objects of all types of experiments, animals are relevant substitutes. In my opinion, given the contemporary level of science development, the opinion of the supporters of animal experimentation is acceptable. If psychologists did not use animals for research, none of the groundbreaking theories would be impossible to generate and validate. Therefore, animals’ suffering is a sacrifice that is aimed at facilitating scientific progress.