Summary:
Harry Harlow was a 20th century psychologist who performed research on rhesus macaque monkeys. Through his research, he changed the landscape of animal research in addition to enacting numerous changes in the way human adults related to their infants and children. His methods are often considered brutal by many people, but regardless of taking into consideration the moral and ethical aspects related to his work, the results have nonetheless been assimilated into modern psychological cannon.
Harlow started by separating the mothers from their newborns and observed the results. This led to the team constructing simulated monkeys and seeing how the separated newborns would react. From his early results, they deduced that touch was a key component of primate psychological development after birth.
Experiments continued over the years. The teams there eventually found that there was another component in addition to touch that was necessary for development. They found that a small amount of additional physical activity, sometimes in the form of rocking or of play, would be enough for them to turn out normally developed.
Harlow started by separating the mothers from their newborns and observed the results. This led to the team constructing simulated monkeys and seeing how the separated newborns would react. From his early results, they deduced that touch was a key component of primate psychological development after birth.
Experiments continued over the years. The teams there eventually found that there was another component in addition to touch that was necessary for development. They found that a small amount of additional physical activity, sometimes in the form of rocking or of play, would be enough for them to turn out normally developed.
Discussion:
I think the benefits of his research have done much to revolutionize the way child care is done today. While a number of his methods go against my own ethical code, I see that the results have yet made a profound impact on our society. Monster? Angel? He was perhaps both at the same time.
I believe it is best to cause no harm, or barring that, to cause the least amount of harm in any given situation where we have a choice in the matter. It would have been difficult for me to engage in the research on a personal level. I think it is possible to conduct most useful research in a more ethical fashion.
On one hand, I want to say that human life is unilaterally more important than any other animal; but at the same time, can I say that any given human life is inherently more valuable than another other organism in existence? Is a person worth more than a dog, or a squirrel, or a tuatara? Cephalopods, such as the octopus, have a more advanced eye than we do. Dogs have a far keener sense of smell. Chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, are far stronger than us and posses raw computational skills than we do. Yet, I can build an F-16 with a full munitions load out, and that means I deserve to exist more than they do? I'm not sure that answer can be answered in the affirmative.
Still, just as was stated by the author, I, too, would choose my own child. I don't have a problem admitting that I am selfish and perhaps elitist over the other members of the animal kingdom in this respect. But I'm also not for the wholesale sacrifice of the others solely for our benefits. I'd like to think there is a way in which we can all coexist. We just have to collectively be willing to fight for that reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment