Study+guide+8

Q5. Dr Harry Harlows studies showed us the importance of bonding in primates. Does this justify the type and extent of his experiments?

//*note - Mary I wasn't able to access the video's of Milgram's prison experiment or Harlow's 'Mother Love' experiment on Youtube as it said the video's had been removed. I was able to view Harlow's 'Scaring a monkey' and the 'Raising on a wire mother' experiments so between these and the text I'm able to get sufficient background to comment*//

Being the first time I've heard of Harry Harlow and his experiments I was disturbed at their nature and at the treatment of the monkeys. From a scientific perspective though it did provide some very important conclusions with regards to the bonding which was then related to the bonding in humans and the importance of nurturing at a young age. So it begs the question - do the results justify the experiments?

It states in the Nuremberg Code that the results should be for the good of society which these results certainly were but who should be the judge of whether the results outweighed the treatment of the monkeys and the effects they had on them? Do we need the knowledge about the importance of bonding in primates? I personally don't think the cruel (yes I believe it was cruelty) treatment of the monkeys was justified by the results. I can't, however, think of another way that the importance of bonding in primates could have been experimentally determined though so I can see how people may have a different opinion to my own. Potentially millions of human infants were better off due to these experiments compared to perhaps hundreds (I'm not sure how many monkeys were used in total) of monkeys being effectively tortured. Unless Harry Harlow was a man without conscience he obviously saw the value of the results to be much higher then any detrimental effects on the monkeys.

I don't believe these experiments would be allowed today but it also makes me wonder who sits on the independent committee that effectively gives the yes or no to potential human/animal experiments because I think that everyone's idea of 'do the results justify the means' will be different. I know my comment is a bit of a foot in each camp response but the more I think about it the more I think there's a bit of a grey area with regards to end result vs means because I really can't think of how else the conclusions arrived at in the experiments could be made any other way. When considering the 3R principal you can't really use reduction as you need a sufficient amount of results that indicate a certain behaviour, not just a few monkeys, and you couldn't subject the one monkey to all the tests as it would then be biased as the monkey would already be affected. I can't think of any replacement ideas whatsoever and refinement could still be adhered to where the monkeys are well cared for and fed yet they would still endure mental, emotional and physical suffering.

It is definately a fine line when considering animals in experiments and I think it's critically important that people continue to adhere to codes such as the Nuremberg and Helsinki codes.

Russell

ML hoped others would comment but seems not. Well done for initiative. As I understand it there is criticism of the application of these results to humans (there always is). Not sure of the detail, but I think one point was that these animals have to cling to their mothers to survive, whereas humans do not. On another tack, I watched the start of a reality series on the ABC comparing baby rearing techniques. Four or so families signed up to follow 4 different techniques. One technique was minimal contact - bottle feeding at arms length, no cuddling. I was horrified. I wondered if the parents infomed consent (surely there was one?!) included being informed about work like Harlows. I turned it off. Couldn't bear it. I'm told the programme was withdrawn. These reality programmes often seem to cross duty of care boundaries to me. I can't watch them.

I certainly agree about the reality television programs. It is surely trading on voyeurism in most cases. Watching people behaving badly, or watching people suffer for one reason or another. Sadly it appears to support the work of Migram in that people will watch those shows if the advertising suggests that they are unmissable. it suggests that we will succumb to the lowest form of behaviour at times. However, I digress. Harlow's experiments indicate the cruel use of monkeys and as such appear unethical, but a comparison with mankind's other use or misuse of animals puts it into a different perspective.

In past times I was involved in medical research using rats or mice numbering approx. 50 in a study. All were killed at the end. Fortunately the trend shifted to killing one to harvest cells for tissue culture. The methods were humane and I don't have nightmares.The changing trend indicates a constant awareness of the ethical issues involved. A comparison of numbers of animals used to service mankind for different reasons would show that we readily kill huge numbers to eat. It is definetely an uncomfortable knowledge and the benefit from Harlow's experiments probably outweighs the sacrifice of the monkeys involved. I think continuing vigilance in maintaining a standard is one way of minimising unethical behaviour and constant reassessing is another.

Gretta

Activity: on the Nuremberg code. Anyone who wishes could do some of this activity here

Activity: more on Harry Harlow. Anyone who wishes could do some of this activity here - but note too that Q5 is on Harlow