Published version reproduced with the permission of the publisher.[FIRST PARAGRAPH] Over 20 years ago, the Society published its first guidance on the use of animals in psychology, in the form of a working party report. That working party grew into the Society’s Standing Advisory Committee on Standards for Psychological Research and Teaching Involving Animals (SACSPRATIA), which in due course produced expanded guidelines on the use of animals in psychological research (BPS Scientific Affairs Board, 1985). These guidelines were worked out in collaboration with the Experimental Psychology Society (EPS), who also published them (see Boakes, 1986). Ever since they have served as standing advice to the members of both Societies and to everyone submitting papers concerning animals to either Society’s journals

Lea, Stephen E.G.

Open Research Exeter

November 2000Animal guidelines556The Psychologist Vol 13 No 11OVER 20 years ago, the Societypublished its first guidance onthe use of animals in psychology,in the form of a working party report. Thatworking party grew into the Society’sStanding Advisory Committee onStandards for Psychological Research and Teaching Involving Animals(SACSPRATIA), which in due courseproduced expanded guidelines on the useof animals in psychological research (BPSScientific Affairs Board, 1985). Theseguidelines were worked out incollaboration with the ExperimentalPsychology Society (EPS), who alsopublished them (see Boakes, 1986). Eversince they have served as standing adviceto the members of both Societies and toeveryone submitting papers concerninganimals to either Society’s journals.Fifteen years further on, we have adifferent Act of Parliament governinganimal research in the UK — the Animals(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; we havea greatly changed regulatory framework,with local ethical review committeesinvolving non-animal users and non-scientists in all universities and researchlaboratories; we have much clearerprofessional standards for all psychologicalwork, and more penalties within theSociety for those who fall short of them;and we have a very different set of debatesabout animal welfare, both withinpsychology and in the wider community— arguably with less heat but more lightbeing generated. Another change is that the Society hasreplaced the almost impossibly titledSACSPRATIA with a renewed and muchmore active Standing Advisory Committeeon the Welfare of Animals in Psychology(SACWAP). One of the tasks SACWAP set itself a few years ago was to make a thorough revision of the Society’sguidance on working with animals.Once again this task has beencompleted in collaboration with the EPS.The new guidelines have been prepared inthe light of the Society’s new policystatement on the use of animals inpsychology, which was approved byCouncil in 1998 and published in Code ofConduct, Ethical Principles & Guidelines(BPS, 1998). The new guidelines have now beenapproved by the Society’s Scientific AffairsBoard and Council and by the EPScommittee. They will be published inSection B of the Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, which carriesmore reports on research on animalpsychology than any other UKpsychological journal. They will also beavailable as a separate publication from theSociety’s office, and they are included inthe current Code of Conduct booklet (BPS,2000)Changing circumstancesThis article aims to give a briefintroduction to the new guidelines,stressing the ways they have had to changeto take account of new circumstances. It isintended both for members who arecurrently working with animals (who willneed to get hold of the new guidelines andlook at them carefully — failure to observethem could be considered professionalmisconduct) and for members generally,who may like to know what position theSociety is taking on these sometimescontroversial matters. One of the biggest changes since thelast guidelines is that we have had to try to cover a wider range of psychologicalactivities. The old guidelines were largelyrestricted to research use of animals,though the working party report thatpreceded them also dealt with teaching.Now we also have to considerpsychologists who use animals as therapyassistants, or who attempt therapy onpsychologically disturbed animals, as wellas colleagues who may be involved in theuse of animals for commercial purposes,such as advertising. These new uses onlyget a toehold in the new guidelines, but wehave tried to prepare for the way some ofthem look like expanding in the near future— especially so-called ‘pet therapy’. Legal obligationsBoth the Society and the EPS require theirmembers to know the laws covering animaluse in the country where their work isdone. Authors submitting research forpublication in the journals of either Societyhave to confirm that they have adhered tosuch laws and to the guidelines. This is oneof the best ways in which societies likeours can exert a positive influence onanimal welfare, and an influence that canextend beyond this country. UK legislation regulates all scientificprocedures that might cause an animal‘pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm’.The first aim should be to avoid suchprocedures altogether by using alternativeexperimental designs or manipulations. But where that cannot be done, researchersmust convince themselves, a local ethicalreview committee (which includes laypeople and a vet as well as scientists),and the Home Office that the costs to theanimal are outweighed by the likelybenefits of the proposed programme ofwork. Whatever procedures are used, anyadverse effects on animals must berecognised and assessed, and immediateaction taken to end them if they go beyondTowards an ethicaluse of animalsSTEPHEN E. G. LEA introduces the Society’s newguidelines for psychologists working with animals.November 2000557The Psychologist Vol 13 No 11Animal guidelineswhat has been foreseen. All of these arelegal requirements. In addition, the Societyexpects that when reporting research inscientific journals or otherwise, researchersmust always be prepared to identify anycosts to the animals involved and justifythem in terms of the scientific benefit of the work.Our guidelines expect psychologists tomake an intelligent choice of animal tostudy — informed by a knowledge of boththe species’ natural history and theindividual animal’s previous experience,and by what they mean for its welfare andthe amount it is likely to suffer in anyexperimental use. We also expectpsychologists to use alternatives, such ascomputer simulation, wherever that canappropriately be done. UK legislationrequires researchers to use the minimumnumber of animals that will achieve theirresearch goals. Our guidelines give someadvice on how this can best be achieved.Almost all animals used by psychologistsnow need to come through legallyrecognised sources, of either laboratory or wild animals.Best practiceThe longest section of the new guidelinesgives specific advice about many of theprocedures that psychologists use withanimals. These include: reward, deprivationand aversive stimulation; isolation andcrowding; aggression and predation;fieldwork; and anaesthesia, analgesia andeuthanasia. In every case we are concernedthat the choice of procedure should bemade intelligently, in the light of theimmense amount we now know about the natural behaviour and psychologicalprocesses of many of the species of animalconcerned. Of course, it is not only duringexperiments that animal welfare can becompromised. European and UK legislationmean that the housing conditions andhusbandry practices for all animals used for scientific purposes must reach the samehigh standards, whether or not they areinvolved in procedures that could causepain or distress. For example, the normalmaintenance of all captive animals shouldincorporate, as much as possible, aspects of the natural living conditions deemedimportant to welfare and survival, andshould take account of their naturalresponses to husbandry operations. Companions should be provided forsocial animals where possible, providingthat this does not lead to suffering or injury.The housing regime should provideadequate exercise and cognitive stimulation.And investigators need to think how theiranimals will see the humans who look afterthem — will they respond to them asconspecifics, predators or symbionts?Animal care staff need to be trained in theprinciples of animal psychology.There are very tight controls on whatcan be done with animals after they haveserved in legally regulated procedures.These are designed to stop animals beingused repeatedly in painful experiments. And when animals must be killed, it has tobe done using approved methods, by peoplewho have been trained to minimise anysuffering involved.Animals in teachingWhen animals are used for teachingpurposes, the guidelines stress the need to discuss with students the ethical issuesinvolved in the use of animals inpsychology. Students should be encouragedto form their own ethical assessments andmust not be required to carry out anyexperimental manipulation that they judgeto be inappropriate. Students are not allowed to carry outprocedures that can cause pain or distress.In some circumstances, though, they canobserve procedures being carried out forresearch purposes; and senior studentsmight, during projects for example, workwith animals that had undergone suchprocedures. When observing animals in their naturalhabitat, students must not be allowed tomanipulate either the animals or the habitat.Research students are in a special category,and the guidelines explain how the currentlegislation regulates their work.Animals in therapyVarious animal species are currently usedby psychologists as aides or adjuncts totherapy: for example, pet dogs used as ‘co-therapists’; horses used for riding bydisabled children; companion animals usedin visiting schemes in hospitals or hospices;pets kept within prisons as part ofrehabilitation programmes; and animalssuch as spiders and snakes used inbehaviour therapy for the treatment ofspecific animal phobias. The guidelinesstress that in all these cases, considerationsconcerning the general care and welfare of therapeutic animals are similar to thoseoutlined for experimental animals. In addition, the individual temperamentand training of the animals needs to beappropriate (e.g. a hospital-visiting dogshould be calm, placid and sociable withpeople), and contact between thetherapeutic animal and client or patientneeds to be monitored at all times —therapeutic interactions, especially withchildren, can be very demanding and tiringfor an animal. Professional responsibilityThe guidelines include an extensive list of references, and addresses of usefulorganisations, with different viewpointsabout animal use. It is a professionalresponsibility on all psychologists workingwith animals to inform themselves aboutthe debate on the desirability of animalwork; we hope that this article will help all our colleagues be aware of the steps theSociety is taking to ensure that standardsare high. SACWAP’s development planensures that the guidelines will bereconsidered regularly in the future, so thatthe Society’s advice to members is kept upto date as new developments emerge.ReferencesBoakes, R.A. (1986). Editorial. Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 38B, 1–3.British Psychological Society (1998). Code of conduct, ethicalprinciples & guidelines. Leicester:Author.British Psychological Society (2000). Code of conduct, ethicalprinciples & guidelines. Leicester:Author.British Psychological Society Scientific Affairs Board (1985).Guidelines for the use of animals in research. Bulletin ofThe British Psychological Society, 38, 289–291. Stephen E.G. Lea is Chair of theSociety’s Standing Advisory Committee on the Welfare of Animals in Psychology. The guidelines include treatment of animals in behaviour therapy for people with phobiasDAVEROBERTS

Towards an ethical use of animals

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Research Exeter