Discuss two or more ethical considerations in animal research when investigating the brain and behaviour.

Refer to the paper 1 section B assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “discuss” requires candidates to offer a considered review of the ethical considerations related to non-human animals and psychological research.

Candidates will likely describe the current guidelines (eg British Psychological Society, American Psychological Association) that regulate using animals for the purposes of research.

A wide range of research studies may be relevant, but the focus of the response should be on ethical considerations, and not an evaluation of the methodology of studies. Evaluation of research which is not focused on ethical considerations is not relevant to this question.

Ethical considerations include, but are not limited to:

• animal welfare (the care of animals in captivity)
• reduction of the number of animals used
• refinement: using less invasive techniques
• replacement: searching for alternatives to animal research
• undue stress and harm
• use of a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the research has value.

Discussion points may include, but are not limited to:

• advancements made as a result of animal research/the effectiveness of animal research
• attempts made over the years to improve the conditions for animals used in research
• change over time in ethical approaches to animal research
• how the use of animals can or cannot be justified
• the rationale for the use of animals.

A discussion of ethical standards for human research – informed consent, deception,right to withdraw or debriefing – is of marginal relevance and will earn low marks for criteria B and D.

If a candidate only discusses one ethical consideration, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B: knowledge and understanding.

Although there were some very strong responses, many candidates struggled with this question. Many candidates only discussed “undue stress or harm” but considered it two different ethical considerations.

Candidates lost marks for focus when they had long discussions of human ethics before turning to animal research. Responses should focus on the demands of the question; it is not the goal for candidates to tell all they know about ethics.

Few candidates applied the command term. Critical thinking with regard to the implications of ethical considerations – e.g. the use of fewer animals affecting reliability of findings, the choice of computer simulations rather than using biological systems or the problem that the requirement to justify research leads to potential biases or even falsification of data – were rarely addressed. Often candidates simply evaluated the studies in terms of generalizability, ecological validity and internal validity, which was of marginal relevance to the question.

Finally, candidates tended to take an oversimplified approach to the question, making statements that animals may never be stressed or harmed – or animal research can never be generalized to humans. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of the complexity of the question.