Abstract

Questions of animal welfare and animal rights have captured a growing amount of public and political attention. Antivivisectionists have become increasingly critical of all animal research and behavioral research has been targeted as an issue of particular concern. Indeed, McArdle, who until recently was a ranking official of the Humane Society of the United States, advocates the 'complete elimination" of all psychological experimentation on animals. Are animal welfare and animal rights activists conscientiously concerned with the genuine well being of animals? Are they focusing their efforts where they can do the most good? Have they developed an internally consistent and logical stand on these issues? Are they innocent of selective perception and compartmentalization when it comes to questions of pain and suffering in animals? In this paper we critically examine some of the arguments against the use of animals in psychological research and show that many of the positions held by antivivisectionists are untenable. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)