Chairs at 262 prominent U.S. and Canadian colleges and universities (75% response rate) completed a questionnaire about animal use, student choice policies, and alternatives to the use of animals in undergraduate psychology education. Results indicated that a majority of institutions used animals in teaching, only a minority had choice policies within animal-based courses, and most schools used alternative learning methods, either as a substitute for or adjunct to live animal laboratories. In this article, I discuss the educational policy implications of practices in the undergraduate psychology animal-based curriculum at “America's best” colleges, especially the common practice of advising reluctant students away from animal course work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsonC. I. (1994). A primer of invertebrate learning: The behavioral perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
AllenT. (1994-1995, Winter). The NIH/NCRR/ARTI survey of animal use: What it can do for you. Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter, 5(4), 14–15.
3.
AlsteteJ. W. (1995). Benchmarking in higher education: Adapting best practices to improve quality. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education.
4.
American Psychological Association. (1996). Guidelines for ethical conduct in the care and use of animals. Washington, DC: Author.
5.
American Psychological Association. (2000). Graduate study in psychology. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
American Psychological Association Board of Educational Affairs. (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7.
AndersonD. C.KregerM. D. (1998a). Bibliographic databases. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 83–86.
8.
AndersonD. C.KregerM. D. (1998b). Laboratory animal Web sites. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 383–387.
9.
BalcombeJ. P. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 22–25.
10.
BalcombeJ. P. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: Problems, alternatives, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.
11.
BaldwinE. (1993). The case for animal research in psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 121–131.
12.
BenedictJ.StoloffM. (1991). Animal laboratory facilities at “America's best” undergraduate colleges. American Psychologist, 46, 535–536.
13.
BottrillK. (1999). Searching for information on non-animal replacement alternatives: A guide to search techniques, databases and specialized resources. Nottingham, England: FRAME.
14.
BowdA.D.ShapiroK. J. (1993). The case against laboratory animal research in psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 133–142.
15.
BroidaJ.TingleyL.KimballR.MieleJ. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society and Animals, 1, 129–144.
16.
CrawfordR. L. (1998). Selected databases for biomedical, pharmaceutical, veterinary and animal science resources (Animal Welfare Information Center Series No. 98-01). Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
17.
CunninghamP. F. (2000). Animals in psychology education and student choice. Society and Animals, 2, 191–212.
18.
CunninghamP. F.RandourM. L. (1998, September-October). Alternatives to the use of animals in education. Psychology Teacher Network, 8, 8, 11.
19.
DewsburyD. A. (1993). A documentary history of the Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE) of the American Psychological Association (APA). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
DillmanD. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
21.
DomjanM.PurdyJ. E. (1995). Animal research in psychology: More than meets the eye of the general psychology student. American Psychologist, 50, 496–503.
22.
DownieR.MeadowsJ. (1995). Experience with a dissection opt-out scheme in university level biology. Journal of Biological Education, 29, 187–195.
23.
EatonR. F.SleighM. J. (2002). The need for comparative research in developmental textbooks: A review and evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 101–105.
FurnhamA.HeyesC. (1993). Psychology students' beliefs about animals and animal experimentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 1–10.
26.
GallupG. G.Jr.BecksteadJ. W. (1988). Attitudes toward animal research. American Psychologist, 43, 474–476.
27.
GallupG. G.Jr.EddyT. J. (1990). Animal facilities survey. American Psychologist, 45, 400–401.
28.
GalvinS. L.HerzogH. A. (1992). The ethical judgment of animal research. Ethics and Behavior, 2, 263–286.
29.
GoslingS. D. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal research?Psychological Bulletin, 127, 45–86.
30.
GrahamK. (2002). A study of three IACUCs and their views of scientific merit and alternatives. Journal of Applied Animal Science, 5, 75–81.
31.
GreekC. R.GreekJ. S. (2002). Specious science: How genetics and evolution reveal why medical research on animals harms humans. New York: Continuum.
32.
HerzogH. A. (1990). Discussing animal rights and animal research in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 17, 90–94.
33.
HullD. B. (1996). Animal use in undergraduate psychology programs. Teaching of Psychology, 23, 171–174.
34.
KapisM. B.GadS. C. (Eds.). (1993). Non-animal techniques in bio-medical and behavioral research and testing. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.
35.
KellyJ. A. (1985). Alternatives to aversive procedures with animals in the psychological teaching setting. In FoxM. W.MickleyL. D. (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1985/86 (pp. 165–184). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.
36.
LaFolletteH.ShanksN. (1996). Brute science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation. New York: Routledge.
37.
LarsonJ. A.AndersonD. C.UngarK.StarkP. S. (1995). Directory of resources on alternatives and animal use in the life sciences (AWIC Resource Series: No. 1). Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
38.
McGovernT. V.ReichJ.N. (1996). A comment on the Quality Principles. American Psychologist, 51, 252–255.
39.
Office of Inspector General. (1995, January). Executive summary: Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (Audit Report No. 33600-1-Ch). Washington, DC: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
40.
PerlmanB.McCannL. I. (1999). The most frequently listed courses in the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 177–182.
PlousS. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychological Science, 7, 352–358.
43.
PlousS.HerzogH. (2001). Reliability of protocol reviews for animal research. Science, 293, 608–609.
44.
Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (1992, May). Student rights option policy. PSYETA Update, 2.
45.
RussellW. M. S.BurchR. L. (1992). The principles of humane experimental research. South Mimms, England: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
46.
Science Directorate. (1999). 1996-1997 CARE nonhuman animal use survey results. Psychological Science Agenda, 12(1), 16.
47.
ShapiroK. J. (1993). Editor's introduction to Society and Animals. Society and Animals, 1, 1–4.
48.
ShapiroK. J. (1998). Animal models of human psychology: Critique of science, ethics, and policy. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
49.
ShapiroK. J.ZawistowskiS. L. (1998). Editor's introduction to the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 1–3.
50.
SmithC. (1994, March). AWIC tips for searching for alternatives to animal research and testing. Lab Animal, pp. 46–48.
51.
StokesW. S.JensenD. J. B. (1995, May). Guidelines for institutional animal care and use committees: Consideration of alternatives. Contemporary Topics, 34, 51–60.
52.
SummersR. L. (1998). Computer simulation studies and the scientific method. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, 119–131.
53.
Tantleff-DunnS.DunnM.E.GokeeJ.L. (2002). Understanding faculty-student conflict: Student perceptions of precipitating events and faculty responses. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 197–202.
54.
ThomasG.V.BlackmanD. (1992). The future of animal studies in psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1679.
55.
U.S. News & World Report. (2001). America's best colleges. Washington, DC: Author.
56.
van der ValkJ.DewhurstD.HughsI.AtkinsonJ.BalcombeJ.BraunH.GabrielsonK.GruberF.MilesJ.NabJ.NardiH.van WilgenburgH.ZinkoU.ZurloJ. (1999). Alternatives to the use of animals in higher education (ECVAM Workshop Rep. 33). Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 27, 39–52.
57.
VigoritoM. (1996). An animal rights attitude survey of undergraduate psychology students. Psychological Reports, 79, 131–142.
