Article: “Discussing Animal Rights and Animal Research in the Classroom” by Harold A. Herzog
(96)I.Research Question
The research question posited by Herzog (1990) is based on the ethical treatment of animals in terms of experimental psychology. Herzog (1990) states this question based on animal rights advocates that want to stop animal experimentation in clinical settings: “This article briefly reviews two major philosophical positions held by animal activists in their arguments against the scientific use of animals” (p.90). The subject of the ethical treatment of animals will be utilized to create a forum for healthy debate between students in a classroom setting.
II.Introduction
Herzog’s (1990) study seeks to understand the different …show more content…
The invention of a mock-psychological committee called “The Animal Care Committee” was created to provide an organizational structure for the students to make decisions on the ethical treatment of animals in scientific settings. Herzog (1990) used the federally mandated Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) standards for ethical decision-making processes as a guide for the students. Herzog (199) allowed the students to debate four clinical cases studies to analyze through the ACUC framework. Also, the two ethical arguments by Singer (1975) in the “utilitarian argument” through equal rights and Regan (1985) and Rollin (1981) define “rights argument” that opposes the tenets of equal rights are used as a gauge for the students to debate ethical …show more content…
Certainly, Herzog (1990) does define that possibility of some of the students may disagree on the unethical treatment of animals: “Others will support the rights of researchers to use animal subjects” (p.93). However, the Singer (1975) and the Regan (1985)/Rollin (1981) are the only framework used for ethical discussion. In this manner, Herzog’s (1990) alleged non-bias of the study appears to favor animal rights advocates: “It is not my purpose to critique these views” (p.91). Yet, Herzog appears to bring the animal rights issue to the forefront of the classroom discussions. Finally, Herzog (1990) does provide a helpful insight into the critical thinking methods that teachers can use to engage students in realistic scenarios that challenge the ethical question of animal rights in experimental
(96)I.Research Question
The research question posited by Herzog (1990) is based on the ethical treatment of animals in terms of experimental psychology. Herzog (1990) states this question based on animal rights advocates that want to stop animal experimentation in clinical settings: “This article briefly reviews two major philosophical positions held by animal activists in their arguments against the scientific use of animals” (p.90). The subject of the ethical treatment of animals will be utilized to create a forum for healthy debate between students in a classroom setting.
II.Introduction
Herzog’s (1990) study seeks to understand the different …show more content…
The invention of a mock-psychological committee called “The Animal Care Committee” was created to provide an organizational structure for the students to make decisions on the ethical treatment of animals in scientific settings. Herzog (1990) used the federally mandated Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) standards for ethical decision-making processes as a guide for the students. Herzog (199) allowed the students to debate four clinical cases studies to analyze through the ACUC framework. Also, the two ethical arguments by Singer (1975) in the “utilitarian argument” through equal rights and Regan (1985) and Rollin (1981) define “rights argument” that opposes the tenets of equal rights are used as a gauge for the students to debate ethical …show more content…
Certainly, Herzog (1990) does define that possibility of some of the students may disagree on the unethical treatment of animals: “Others will support the rights of researchers to use animal subjects” (p.93). However, the Singer (1975) and the Regan (1985)/Rollin (1981) are the only framework used for ethical discussion. In this manner, Herzog’s (1990) alleged non-bias of the study appears to favor animal rights advocates: “It is not my purpose to critique these views” (p.91). Yet, Herzog appears to bring the animal rights issue to the forefront of the classroom discussions. Finally, Herzog (1990) does provide a helpful insight into the critical thinking methods that teachers can use to engage students in realistic scenarios that challenge the ethical question of animal rights in experimental