For example it would be almost impossible to control the variables that may influence a situation and although being able to control the environment/variables may seem like a good thing all its creating is an artificial environment. This is the reason why field experiments are better favored by an interpritivist as an experimental method. There are also many ethical issues regarding the conduction of experiments on human beings as informed consent is necessary from the participants and it is difficult or impossible to get consent of somebody who has learning difficulties or is a baby. Many sociologists choose not
Experiments may not always go right, data might have been recorded incorrectly; there are many things that could cause harm to both humans and animals. A simple difference between a monkey or guinea pig and human’s bodily functions could easily mess up an experiment and allow chaos to break loose. This puts humans at risk by infecting them with viruses and illnesses that would not have been present in the lab if there was no testing to be done. Testing animals can put humans at risk, but it most definitely puts the animals themselves at risk. Animals are part of nature and allow the circle of life to continue and
Therefore, testing on prisoners does not only deprive them of their rights but also indicate that their value is lesser than that of cats and mice. Around the world, the countries with
Obtaining informed consent from participants who are children or have learning difficulties may be difficult. Lying to participants about the nature of the experiment, as Milgram (1974) did in his studies of obedience to authority, is considered morally wrong. Therein lies another issue, as if people know they are being studied/know the nature of the experiment, the Hawthorne effect may occur, where the participants behaviour is unnatural. This would not produce valid results, therefor ruining the experiment. However, the laboratory experiment is highly reliable, as it is easily repeatable and a detached method.
Behaviourists such as Watson believe that people do not have free will and that our environment determines the way in which we behave, either by reinforcement or a stimulus response. The behaviourist approach believes that psychology should be seen as a science with behaviour being observed and measured and not thought of internally like thoughts and emotions. Behaviourists believe that there is very little difference between the way humans and animals learn and therefore see this as an advantage as they can
[animal-testing.procon.org] Researchers in Aston University have made it known that it is not worth taking the lives of these animals for testing, because the things we’re trying to make happen with human bodies is very different from the animal body. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. There is a big percentage from the 1950’s up till now that animal testing is flawed by not being correct when it is given to the people it is for. So why not just stop the animal experiments that are not just killing, but also torturing the animals.
Some simply believe it is absolutely wrong for one person to walk around with another dead person’s liver etc. Therefore, you can imagine reactions to animal organ transplants. Even people who accept organ donation can see this as a wrong thing to do, without being religious or following your culture. It may simply seem unacceptable and this is not necesserily effected by the media but it my be like a voice inside of you telling you that this is wrong. However others see it as just another organ that can save a persons live no matter where it came from.
For years animal testing has been considered a crucial way of determining whether a makeup product is safe to use on humans. However many people forget that it is inhumane, unethical, and there are countless other ways to test products that are much more reliable and much more humane. Think about it, what breaks one human out in a rash, won’t necessarily break another person out in a rash. So logically animals might react totally different than a human would to those same products. Animals are a very unreliable way of testing whether something is safe or not, and there are other options available to researchers.
Eventually, the animal will stop trying to avoid the stimulus and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation. Even when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness will prevent any action. The concept is strongly tied to animal psychology and behavior; it can also apply to many situations involving human beings. When people feel that they have no control over their Learned Helplessness 3 situation, they may also begin to behave in a helpless manner. This inaction can lead people to overlook opportunities for relief or change.
Also the way that the animals react to the stress of the experiments can severely affect the end results, rendering the experiments meaningless. Although it is true that we need animals to test our medical drugs on because if we didn’t, with modern day technology we wouldn’t be able to find cures for major diseases. But that doesn’t mean we should treat them so