Evaluate one or more studies that use an animal model to investigate the relationship between genetics 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 “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more studies that use an animal model to investigate the relationship between genetics and behaviour.

Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Relevant studies include, but are not limited to:

• Cases et al. (1995); Mosienko et al. (2012), Van Oortmerssen and Bakker ‘s (1981) studies of aggression in mice
• Farooqi and Rahilly (2006); Friedman (1950) studies of obesity in rats
• Shmelkov et al.’s (2010) study of OCD in mice

Evaluation of the selected research studies may include, but is not limited to:

• methodological and ethical considerations
• potential differences between humans and animals
• the strengths and limitations of a reductionist approach
• supporting and/or contradictory findings
• construct validity with regard to the behaviour studied and the question of anthropomorphism
• the applications of the empirical findings

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations of the study or studies, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

There were many very impressive responses to this question. Candidates showed excellent knowledge of the role of animal models in genetic research and had a very good understanding of the limitations of both the research and the use of the models.

There were, however, several common errors in the approach to the response. Several candidates focused on ethical considerations in animal research, rather than on the demands of the question. There were also some responses that used research, such as Meaney (1988), but failed to link the study to genetics. There were also several responses that used an animal study for one behaviour, but then a human study for another behaviour — for example, Meaney's study of the GR gene for stress regulation and Caspi's study on the 5-HTT gene and depression.

Some candidates argued that we cannot learn anything from animal models. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of their potential value in understanding behaviour.