Before the publication of "On Fabric of the Human Body" by Andreas Versalius, people were dissecting animals in hopes understanding the human anatomy. It was not until Versalius had published his book that the world understood the functions and positions of organs within the human body. In comparison to animals, many areas were positioned differently than the human body. Animals also have alternate functions to certain organs due to their diets and their habits of walk, mating, etc. Currently, the use of animals in research is unnecessary due to technology and the use of volunteered cadavers. The use of animals at this point would not be beneficial for research of the human body in hopes of helping our race.
The use of technology does not think like a human. I understand the advancement of technology and volunteered cadavers, but what about studies that involves the specimen to be alive? In psychology, many case studies involve the naturalistic studying of animals, others they are being tested on so they can be compared to the human body and mind. Technology cannot provide that kind of information for us. I do not necessarily believe in the potential harming such as the testing of make up on animals, but research for the mind and behavior should not be ruled out with the rest of the potentially harmful studies.
The comparison between animals and humans are not anatomically the same. How does the brain and the function of the brain of animal even compare to that of a humans? In psychology, what is the purpose of studying when it is not to benefit for human progress and evolution? The use of observational research of humans and case studies will provide you with the same needed results. Observing animals in research does not help the benefits of a human due to the different characteristics and environment. Harming of animals in testing is unnecessary, but using animals in a non harmful way for research is not reliable because of how different they are. Humans may have evolved from apes, but there are differences in the overall makeup of the specimen.
though they are not anatomically the same, they are anatomically similar. The use of humans in research in unethical. so how would you continue the research. we are 96% similar to chimpanzees, therefore their behavior and their thought process is the same except for high functioning analysis (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...). How does the observation of these species not benefit the human race? we are basically looking at our uncivilized selves from a third person point of view. for psychology, there is a purpose because of this genetic similarly. We are then able to study and learn deeper about the mind and why are the way we are. I never adovated for harm of animals, but USE of them.
Sure, we used animals in the past to understand the human body and to further our knowledge, but nowadays, they should not be used. We have other methods to researching. What about the animals that are being harmed? Should we then continue to use animals even though they are being harmed, for the benefit for ourselves? If we use chimpanzees to see ourselves in a third person point of view, then what is the point of naturalistic observation of humans?
Chimpanzees will not only be used to observe, that's what humans are for. But to test and to understand things that are more genetic are more noticeable in them rather than us because we have both genes and experiences meshed to create who we are today. I don't advocate for the harming of animals, I think its wrong, but without their help we wouldn't be anymore safer towards potentially harm chemicals.
Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.
How does them not having a choice means they are not helping us?That doesn't correlate whatsoever. Synthetic materials aren't the real thing and how sure are we that it will act exactly the same for a live person? There are now ethical guidelines to make sure animals aren't in horrible habits. We can't stop every horrible research, but the effort is there and I see that, but as the time we are in now, they are used to benefit the human race.