Exploration From Within: Students and Animal Research, Article Critique Example

Exploration From Within: Students and Animal Research

Research Question

Essentially, the question posed by Herzog in his 1990 article,  “Discussing Animal Rights and Animal Research in the Classroom,” is: does active simulation by students enhance knowledge and awareness of the issues surrounding the ethics of using animals in research? Consequently, the question goes to expansion of thinking, rather than to any definitive findings.

Introduction

Before setting out his strategy of student simulation, Herzog begins his article with a generalized statement regarding the increasing debate regarding animals as used for behavioral and biomedical research.  He then emphasizes how an exploration of this ethical arena is valuable for all studies of ethics, because any major social issue must concern the student of psychology.  Herzog also maintains that the question demands examination of the thought processes of all evolved creatures, which is an obligation of psychology (1990, p. 90).  He then sets out Peter Singer’s “liberationist” views regarding animals, as well as the potentially contrary rights arguments of Regan and Rollin.  In assessing these views, Herzog does not rely on data, as the arguments are inherently ideological.  His purpose is to present the differing concepts at large, and consequently impress the student/reader with the conflict intrinsic to the subject, and on a widespread basis.

Methods

With it understood that all research funding depends upon approval of an Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC), Herzog’s hypothetical scenario is based upon students going into groups of five to seven, and charged with examining the specific ethical and scientific aspects of four individual cases.  Even as Herzog offers this as a proposal, he simultaneously presents the methods as those he has employed himself, with over 150 students in five classes  (1990,  p. 93).

The relevance of the participants is blatant, as they are psychology students, and the cases to be discussed by them are based on actual circumstances  (Herzog, 1990,  p.  91).   These students, as reported regarding Herzog’s own study, are instructed as to the consequences of their discussion and decision-making, and that latter element reflects the data collection.  With each case, ranging from the potential importance of using monkeys in Alzheimer’s research to testing field rats, the student group consensus comprises the findings.  As noted, the purpose of the entire exercise goes only to the promotion of discussion and critical thinking (Herzog, 1990,  p. 91).

Results

With regard to results from his own work, Herzog is understandably brief.  Essentially, he avers that the scenarios as engaged in by his students uniformly generated new levels of introspection and analysis, as all but two students recommended that the exercise be carried on elsewhere (Herzog, 1990,  p.  93).  He appears extremely satisfied in gathering responses which typically reflect new states of awareness in regard to the subject.  As the initial question goes to nothing more substantive than this, it may be maintained that the “findings” thoroughly support the methodology.

Discussion/Conclusions

In his discussion, Herzog aptly offers further reason for his proposed scenarios, and in ways regarding both ethics and pragmatic concerns.  On one level, he feels the experiments are crucial because animal rights activism steadily increases, and consequently generates a greater emphasis on the core ethics of animal testing.  On another, he acknowledges that schools will be further challenged by students unwilling to entertain animal research without such ethical analysis (Herzog, 1990,  p. 93).  While taking no definitive stance, the author concludes in reinforcing the immense presence of the subject, and its repercussions on other fields of study.

References

Perhaps the most striking component of the article is Herzog’s reliance on a vast field of research.  The article is brief and, as noted, concerned primarily with ideological debate.  A wide variety of scholarly source material is nonetheless employed, ranging from Singer’s militant Animal Liberation to Herzog’s own research.  The relevance in terms of dating is valid, given the article’s 1990 creation; no sources go back further than 1973, most are from the late 1980s, and all reflect academic integrity.

Personal Reaction

On one level, Herzog’s dedication to expanding student awareness of the ethics of his subject is admirable.  This is a true professor at work, for his greatest concern is the generating of thought in his students.  Then, and inescapably, the subject itself demands attention.  More importantly, I receive the impression that employing actual case studies accomplishes what no classroom discussion could, in that it adds gravity to the issues.  There are moments in the article not entirely clear to me, as when Herzog claims that animal liberationists resist research because it is particularly “onerous” (1990,  p. 90).  More exactly, I suspect this is not the meaning Herzog had in mind, as the degree of difficulty of the work would not be likely to offend such parties.  On the whole, however, I find this article to be a valid endorsement of a method for ideological discussion.

References

Herzog, Harold A. (1990). “Discussing Animal Rights and Animal Research in the Classroom.”

Teaching of Psychology,13 (2),  90-94.  Retrieved from http://ethics.iit.edu/eelibrary/biblio/discussing-animal-rights-and-animal-research-classroom