Daniel D. Moriarty

As a psychologist who works with animals, my research and that of my colleagues is often targeted by animal rights groups for special criticism. Their argument is that the study of animal behavior cannot possibly contribute anything to the understanding of the human condition, and is therefore without value and cannot be justified. In fact, the contribution of animal behavioral research to both human and animal welfare has been well documented.

The science of psychology is often misunderstood. Some believe that psychology is a mental health profession similar to psychiatry, whose focus is the understanding and treatment of behavioral disorders, while others see psychology as the study of the human mind. Psychologists are certainly interested in these matters, but the scope of our discipline is much broader. If one defines the field in terms of what psychologists do, then it becomes apparent that psychology does not limit itself to abnormal processes, nor indeed to human ones. Psychological science seek to understand the behavior and cognition of all animal species, including the human one. Comparative psychologists are especially interested in non-human species, and the relevance of much of their research to human welfare seems remote indeed.

All science is human-oriented, at least in the sense that it reflects the values of humans about what is important enough to study. Unfortunately, many see science as valuable only if its products directly benefit humankind. Comparative psychologists reject this arrogant specism and argue that non-human animals are important in and of themselves, and that their behavior and cognition are worthy of scientific investigation. This in turn reflects another human value, that knowledge is always preferable to ignorance, even when the knowledge has no current practical use. The term "non-human animal" of course suggests that humans are members of the animal kingdom. Comparative questions about human versus animal are therefore at the same conceptual level as questions about rat versus animal, dog versus animal, and chimpanzee versus animal, where humans are included among the animals. While all of this is clear to most scientists, many animal activists miss the obvious but important point that by opposing research with some animals (e.g. rats), they are threatening the welfare of other animals (e.g. humans).

Two categories of behavioral research are generally recognized. In the first, the goal is to understand some specific phenomenon or process, such as, learning, migration, predator defense, or attitudes about animal research. The species selected for investigation must obviously be one that displays phenomenon or process of interest and one that can be studied conveniently. This sort of research has demonstrated many striking similarities among widely divergent species, and anyone who disputes their existence is simply not familiar with the research literature. Such similarities form the basis for research in which one species is studied as a model for another species. For example, behavioral studies of Andean condors provided valuable information that was applied in the captive breeding and release of California condors. But the use of non-human animals as models for human behavior and cognition is often criticized because of assumed differences between humans and other species. Humans, as the anthropocentric argument goes, are so far advanced that the study of mere animals can tell us nothing of value. Such criticism ignores the fact that it is based on an assumption which is actually a very complex theoretical issue. Testing it can be done only through extensive comparative research. Critics of modeling also miss the closely related point that models are actually theories which must be thoroughly explored and verified in the species involved.

In addition to similarities among species, important differences are also observed. A process, such as echolocation, may be vital in some species, but not in others. Many see the simultaneous existence of similarity and difference to be a contradiction. But the study of similarities and differences among species provides the background for understanding the evolutionary forces that shape behavior and cognition, and as a result, for understanding the place of the each species in nature. Without the comparative study of similarities, unique features of different species, including our own, can never be understood or fully appreciated.

The second sort of behavioral research focuses on the understanding of a given species. A good deal of psychological research is directed at understanding the human animal, but again, the comparative psychologist would argue that humans are not the only species worthy of study. Could anyone possibly argue that the knowledge about chimpanzees, wolves, dolphins, honeybees, and so on obtained through both lab and field research has not increased our understanding of, and respect for non-human species? This kind of knowledge is a major driving-force behind much of the ecological movement.

Perhaps more than any other group, scientists who study animal behavior recognize the uniqueness and value of the species they study. Comparative psychologists seek to understand evolution, development, and underlying mechanisms of behavioral and cognitive adaptations. It is perhaps because of their work, that many comparative psychologists are actively involved in efforts to preserve animals and their habitats.

Comparative psychologists, along with their colleagues in the other behavioral sciences have brought research-based principles of animal behavior to bear on numerous practical problems. Countless companion animals have been saved from abandonment and/or euthanasia by the modification of behaviors considered to be unacceptable by their owners. The health and welfare of lab and zoo animals has been improved through knowledge about their behavioral requirements and appropriate modifications of their housing environments to meet those requirements. Behavioral methods for controlling predators that avoid trapping and killing have been developed. Bringing species back from the brink of extinction and protecting others not yet threatened requires an intimate knowledge of them and of their behaviors.

Why do animal advocates attempt to portray scientists as the enemy when it would seem that they ought to have much in common with them? I think that the rank-and-file members of many animal rights/welfare groups are sincere people who truly believe the anti-science propaganda produced by the leaders of their organizations. I think that most have no real knowledge of what actually goes on in research labs, nor of the concerns of the scientists who do animal research. I am sure that their leaders want to keep it that way!

Miller, N.E. (1985). The value of behavioral research on animals.American Psychologist, 40, 423-440.