The debate over the use of animals within research will continue to be topical for years to come due to the lack of concrete definitions concerning animal rights and a common ground on which all parties may converge. My own opinion is that animals provide unique insight into the biological processes that effect our behavior and so as living organisms are invaluable to research. The rights of animals in comparison with humans is ill-defined, and yet we do feel that the humane treatment of animals during research is essential. Herzog (1990) makes an excellent attempt at creating the initial template for animal rights in Philosophy, ethology, and animal rights. The principle difficulty is determining whether or not animals have the same rights and warrant the same standards of ethical and moral treatment as humans. Homo Sapiens are viewed in a different moral sphere when compared to other creatures, yet these comparisons are often based on intelligence, empathy and moral responsibility (e.g.. Fox, 1986; King, 1986). These qualities are reliant upon language and communication between a species, which leaves humans in no position to deny or support the existence of these very same qualities among animals with which we have no means of communicating. It also may exclude intellectually handicapped adults and young children. Only the very behavioral studies in which animals are participating may supply the data necessary for arriving at such a conclusion.

Another point that is relatively hard to ignore is the concept that any animal that is capable of experiencing pain should therefore seek to avoid it. Pain is in itself a biological response to biological or psychological trauma. Indeed, it has been stated that according to the basic principles of equality the suffering of one being must be counted equally - in so much as such vague comparisons can be made - with the suffering of another being (Singer, 1990). Vague in that it is hard to make qualitative comparisons between the suffering of one compared to another, if indeed that being is capable of suffering at all under specific circumstances (Herzog, 1990).

The best argument for animals being used in research is to point out the direct improvements to both human AND animal welfare, which itself is strictly monitored. Research into areas such as infant maternal deprivation (e.g.. Myers, 1995, Figure 3-11), perceptual restrictions in newborns (e.g.. Myers, 1995, Figure 6-15) and electrical stimulation of the brain (e.g.. Myers, 1995, Figure 2-16) have yielded a great deal of valuable insight into the affects of biological mechanisms on behavior or vice versa. And yet some of these practices would not pass the guidelines of organizations such as A.P.H.I.S. (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) or the A.P.A.'s (American Psychological Association) 'Ethical Principles of Psychologists' (1990) and 'Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals' (1993); actually devised by Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (C.A.R.E. ). However, one of the most praised organizations is the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (A.A.A.L.A.C.) which has often been referred to as offering the "gold standard" for animal research facilities (Baldwin, 1993, pg. 127).

Although it may seem that the benefits to the animals themselves are virtually nil many research projects have lead to improvements in veterinary science, the environments of captive animals and captive breeding programs (King et al, 1988). Vaccines have been developed for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia and Lyme disease. Behavioral studies, primarily concerned with use of chimpanzees, have actually led to improvements in the living conditions of these animals, as well as captive animals in general (Novak & Petto, 1991).

The benefits to human society have been even more measurable. Particularly in the rehabilitation of those suffering nerve related disorders such as those resulting from stroke, head and spinal cord injury and Alzheimer's disease. Animal research has also led to improvements in the treatment of alcoholism and obesity, substance abuse, chronic migraine headaches and insomnia (Miller, 1985). Notice that all these conditions have a biological component that could not have been discovered otherwise without taking much more time and considerable effort, primarily as the search for an alternative is undertaken.

It has been suggested that alternatives to animal research be developed to both spare animals and provide a means of study to students who object to animal use in research. This is much easier said than done. How can we possibly replicate the invaluable information that a living, biological entity can provide? One suggestion is that computer models be developed, and yet this only means that animals will still be required for the compilation of data needed to construct the model, and then prove the reliability of the device in comparison within each conceivable outcome (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1986). This in itself may lead to greater involvement of animals within research. The only possible conclusion is that whatever harm the animals incur during invasive research is unavoidable because there are no viable alternatives (Gallup & Saurez, 1985; King, 1984; Miller, 1985).

Opinion polls indicate that the public favors the use of animals in research but want assurance that the animals are being treated in an humane matter (Baldwin, 1993). While it is a relatively easy manner for humans to determine what constitutes 'humane' treatment, the real battle lies in defining the rights that animals actually have. This will then become the key to an eventual resolution; it supplies a common ground. Research on live humans that cannot give their consent is morally objectionable, and yet no one seems to be 'speaking for the animals' who themselves cannot give consent. As much as an animal activist may suggest so, he will also be speaking in biased terms along with the psychologist who seeks; or is required; to justify his actions. One cannot help but think it ironic that the task of defining animal rights undoubtedly belongs to the representatives of human ethics to engage.