Ethics in Research

 Thanks to the comment of a knowledgeable student, I’ve recently become enlightened about the shadow side of Harry Harlow’s famous study of monkeys. Dubbed “monkey love” by some, the research proved the importance of contact comfort and warmth in the healthy development of Rhesus monkeys, and for decades I’ve viewed Harlow’s findings as valuable. Now I’m wondering if the price paid by these little animals was worth the knowledge gained.

The infant monkeys were taken from their birth mothers from 12 to 24 hours after their births and “raised” by surrogate monkey mothers, one constructed of wire mesh with a bottle of milk stuck in her thoracic cavity and the other covered with terry cloth. The terry cloth mom also had a light bulb beneath the terry cloth. The monkeys spent the majority of their days clinging to the terry cloth mother who provided warmth and “rubbability.” As adults, none of the monkeys were well adjusted, and those who had offspring of their own were described as brutal and rejecting.

So far, so good. After all, Harlow demonstrated the effects of love deprivation in monkeys, and it’s not much of a stretch to apply these findings to human infants. However, after Christy’s disapproving (of Harlow’s methods) statement in class, I did a little further reading.  Terms such as iron maiden, rape rack, isolation chamber, and pit of despair popped up immediately, all with negative consequences for the animals.

Time prohibits a listing of all of Harlow’s experiments and the disparaging commentary about them. While his research provided insight into the consequences of abuse and love deprivation, many feel that it was unethical and that the ends do not justify the means.  What’s your opinion about the use of animals in psychological research? Do you think there are situations in which it’s ethical?

 

 

 

 

P.S. to Nature/Nurture

A little online reading unearthed an interesting statement by Lewis Terman to Harry Harlow when he learned of the latter’s  upcoming marriage to Clara Mears. Having a tested IQ of 155, Clara was a young woman who had been  part of Terman’s classic study of gifted children. Yes, 155. That’s extraordinarily high when you consider that the average American IQ is 100.

 So is intelligence more related to genes and chromosomes or to one’s environment? Read Terman’s statement and tell how you think it relates to the nature/nurture issue mentioned in yesterday’s post: “I am happy to see the joining of Clara’s extraordinary hereditary material with Harry’s productivity as a psychologist.”

As a postscript, I know that Mears and Harlow had two children, but I don’t know anything about their intellectual capacity or productivity. What’s your guess?

Nature or Nurture or Both?

Aside from that adorable dimple in your left cheek, what else have you inherited from your parents? Are you tall, short, smart, dull, musically gifted, athletically adept, or linguistically proficient? Or maybe you’re a math whiz. Whatever you are, you’re the unique combination of your heredity and your environment.

Just how much of our development is because of our unique genetic endowment, that special combination of genes and chromosomes that is passed on to us from our ancestors? In addition to physical attributes, think about characteristics such as intelligence, personality, and predisposition to certain mental and physical disorders and share your opinion on which you believe to be more important, nature or nurture.

There’s no right or wrong response to this so-called “debate.” I’m just interested in your thoughts about what makes you uniquely you.

All Talk, No Action

A week or so ago I posted something about losing weight, mainly because I was becoming increasingly annoyed at the promises of this or that product to make one into a svelte person (for a price, of course).  Several students jumped on the bandwagon and posted some honest and “true –life” responses. 

Today it occurred to me that while I stand by my original premise that there are no secret formulas or shortcuts to losing weight, I’d like to add a little postscript, a comment I’ve heard so many times that I’ve committed it to memory. So have many of the rest of you. The problem is that I haven’t committed it to lifestyle, to personal decisions and behaviors. Here it is: “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.”

I’m an average sized gal who’s never worried that much about weight except when “with child.” Even then, I knew that it was a temporary state and that sooner or later, I’d resemble the me of yesteryear. That said, I’m carrying around 3 – 5 more pounds than I did five years ago, and while it’s true that I’m older and that my metabolism has slowed, there are things I must change IF I want to shed those few pounds. Some who know me will argue that I look fine, but the truth is that once you gain 3 or 4 pounds, it’s easier to gain 8 or 9 or 10 or 12.

What have I been doing about it? Mainly talking. All talk, no action. Sure, I still walk about 20 miles a week, and I’m pretty good about not eating fatty foods or red meat. I don’t even drink soft drinks, not even the diet variety.  However, if I’m serious about losing those four annoying pounds, then I’ve got to do something more than I have been doing. I must develop a new strategy.

So here’s the plan. Tomorrow I’m going to walk 15 minutes more AND eat one less granola bar or cookie. And I’ll do it the next day too. In fact, I’ll follow some version of the above until I’ve reached my desired weight. That said, I’m going to floss and brush right now, thus removing the temptation to waltz back into the kitchen where the goodies are.

Remember: If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.  What are you doing to bring about the change(s) you want? Are you still doing what you’ve always done, or are you sincerely making an effort to do things a little differently?