1. Ethical Considerations in Animal Research

Reviewing Guidelines:

• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): Emphasizes replacing animals with alternative methods whenever possible, minimizing animal pain and distress, and ensuring proper housing and care [1].
• Americans for Medical Progress (AMP): Recognizes the importance of animal research for medical advancements while advocating for responsible animal use, adherence to the “Three Rs,” and minimizing pain and distress [2].

The Three R’s:

The “Three Rs” are a cornerstone of ethical animal research:

• Replacement: Developing alternative methods like cell cultures, computer modeling, and human tissue studies to replace animals whenever possible.
• Reduction: Minimizing the number of animals used by carefully designing studies and using statistical methods to reduce sample sizes.
• Refinement: Reducing animal pain and distress by improving housing conditions, minimizing invasive procedures, and providing pain relief. [3]

Alternatives to Animal Testing:

• Cell cultures: Studying cells in a controlled environment can provide valuable information about cell function and potential drug interactions.
• Computer modeling: Simulating biological processes on computers allows researchers to test hypotheses and reduce reliance on animals.
• Human tissue studies: Using anonymized human tissue samples can provide insights into disease progression and treatment efficacy.

Replacing Animal Testing:

These alternatives can replace animal testing when they are:

• Validated: Proven to provide reliable and accurate data comparable to animal studies.
• Applicable: Suitable for addressing specific research questions and mimicking human biology.
• Cost-effective: Economically feasible for researchers and laboratories to implement. [4]

Sources:

1. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/
2. Americans for Medical Progress (AMP). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.amprogress.org/
3. National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2020). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
4. National Research Council (US) Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. (2011). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory National Academies Press.

2. Psychology Internship Case Study

Ethical Responsibility of the Intern:

• Confidentiality: The intern should not disclose the roommate’s mental health information without their consent. This upholds the ethical principle of confidentiality outlined in the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct [5].
• Client Welfare: The intern should prioritize their roommate’s well-being and avoid actions that could cause harm. This aligns with the APA principle of beneficence.
• Competence: If the intern feels unqualified to handle the situation, they should seek guidance from a supervisor or licensed psychologist.

Fault if Roommate Finds Out:

Legally, the therapist is ultimately responsible for maintaining confidentiality. However, the intern could face disciplinary action for violating ethical codes.

Personal Feelings and Actions:

It’s important for the intern to acknowledge their feelings but not let them cloud judgment. They should act professionally and prioritize their ethical obligations.

Multiple Interns:

With multiple interns, shared responsibility could arise. Discussing the situation beforehand and establishing clear boundaries can help maintain confidentiality.

Morals, Values, and Ethics:

In this situation, the intern’s morals (personal beliefs), values (what they consider important), religious upbringing (potential influence on views on mental health), ethical responsibilities (obligations to the profession), and safety concerns (roommate’s well-being) create a complex situation. The intern needs to weigh these factors while adhering to professional ethics.

Sources:

1. American Psychological Association (APA). (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

3. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: A Case of Unethical Research

Description: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972, remains a prime example of unethical research. The study enrolled 399 African American men with syphilis, withholding treatment and falsely telling them they were receiving free healthcare. Researchers monitored the progression of the disease without informing participants of their diagnosis or the availability of treatment (penicillin) by the mid-1940s.

Consequences: The study had devastating consequences. Many participants died from complications of syphilis, and some unknowingly passed the disease on to their partners and children. The study violated participants’ autonomy, inflicted physical and psychological harm