Harlow experiments

[printscreen]

---

Members do not see this ad.

This is so sad... Annoying as it is to submit IRB protocols sometimes, I literally could not BELIEVE some of the details of the Harlow experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Harlow

Apparently his grad student, Stephen Suomi, is director of the Institute of Child Health at the NIH. I can't believe how cruel these experiments are, especially the ones that harmed the monkeys physically or led to extreme social deprivation! Especially given how intelligent some money species are. No real reason for this thread, just wanted to share...

I also was somewhat creeped out/found it funny what a gap there is in between the actual experiment design that the fact the guy who did them heads child health at the NIH....

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I think it is inappropriate to judge past actions by the current standard. I do not know firsthand but I think at the time there was less interest in animal rights. Also, it seems from the wiki page that even at the time at least one student was wary of the treatment of the animals.

On the flip side, I think it is great we have that research now.

 

[printscreen]

Awww... I disagree. Poor monkeys. I can't imagine being the grad student responsible for running that study.

 

[cara susanna]

I think Zimbardo's worse, personally.

 

[MBellows]

I think Zimbardo's worse, personally.

He did a recent guest appearance on Freakonomics that shed some light on that experiment.

 

[MBellows]

Awww... I disagree. Poor monkeys. I can't imagine being the grad student responsible for running that study.

Poor monkeys indeed. But what about the fact that the research led to a host of research on attachment theory, something often cited when removing children from neglectful homes? Of course that is hindsight, but then again so are the ethics that you are trying to project back.

 

[printscreen]

He did a recent guest appearance on Freakonomics that shed some light on that experiment.

Oh, there is a show for Freakonomics? What did he say about the experiment?

But what about the fact that the research led to a host of research on attachment theory, something often cited when removing children from neglectful homes? Of course that is hindsight, but then again so are the ethics that you are trying to project back.

Yeah, good point. But on the flip side of that why not project ethics back? It's not like researchers no longer have the option of doing animal studies. A lot of the questions still apply.

For me it doesn't make sense to say, "well, fewer people thought something was wrong back then, so it wasn't as wrong as it is now." Just because it is a foundational study does not mean for me that it deserves so much reverence. 😛

But what about the fact that the research led to a host of research on attachment theory, something often cited when removing children from neglectful homes?

Ok, re: the impact of attachment research, sure the study did yield results... The chicken wire mother thing gets talked about all the time... physical punishment of the monkeys, less so. For me the study is less meaningful because when people talk about the results, they're talking about them in a way that's removed from the conditions of the experiment. People rarely talk about the other stuff Harlow did because I think it would be embarrassing to dwell on it. Not to mention that there were so many other ways people have studied attachment since.

 

[cara susanna]

Well, I know that the Harlow punishment studies are often cited in operant conditioning research. Not saying it justifies it, but I don't agree that people aren't talking about it.

I'd also like to hear what Zimbardo said about his study that shed new light. The fact that he makes money going around and talking about his huge ethical failure just rankles me to no end.

 

[MBellows]

Oh, there is a show for Freakonomics? What did he say about the experiment?

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/09/14/fear-thy-nature-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Yeah, good point. But on the flip side of that why not project ethics back? It's not like researchers no longer have the option of doing animal studies. A lot of the questions still apply.

For me it doesn't make sense to say, "well, fewer people thought something was wrong back then, so it wasn't as wrong as it is now." Just because it is a foundational study does not mean for me that it deserves so much reverence. 😛

Generally, it's because it isn't seen as "fair" to hold people to current standards. That's not to say that we shouldn't change or that we shouldn't be ashamed of our past and fear going back. A modern example that doesn't have an irrational moral knee-jerk is whenever they update the standards for mental health practitioners. Soon the standards across the board will go from 48 hours to 60 hours of Master's level training, do you mean to say that we should go back and nullfy the licenses people who had the 48 hour master's degree? We also don't charge people when they do something and then we make it illegal.

Another issue that you will run into in the field of academia if you plan on being a researcher or holding your own in a field of scientists is that it appears that you adhere to an absolutist or objective moral system. While it hasn't always been this way, most scientists adhere to subjective morality because it's the easiest to defend. For more on this I would check out the The Story of Psychology the podcast is available here. If I remember correctly the information is presented in 17-18 and 20. The book for this podcast is here.

Ok, re: the impact of attachment research, sure the study did yield results... The chicken wire mother thing gets talked about all the time... physical punishment of the monkeys, less so. For me the study is less meaningful because when people talk about the results, they're talking about them in a way that's removed from the conditions of the experiment. People rarely talk about the other stuff Harlow did because I think it would be embarrassing to dwell on it. Not to mention that there were so many other ways people have studied attachment since.

It's somewhat insulting to research if you only look at the references to a specific study. If you want to give an author full credit, you also have to look at the studies built from the studies that they created, and the studies built from them, and the studies that elaborate on them and so forth.

 

[printscreen]

Thanks for your comments, they are pretty awesome. I'll check out the podcast. Below are my opinions on the topic.

Generally, it's because it isn't seen as "fair" to hold people to current standards.

No, I think it is... we do this all the time with racism, sexism, and animal rights. We say it was a bad thing that homophobia used to be considered a mental disorder and that it was unfair that women used to not be able to vote, not that we can't comment because mores were different. We do judge things that took place in the past all the time.

A modern example that doesn't have an irrational moral knee-jerk is whenever they update the standards for mental health practitioners. Soon the standards across the board will go from 48 hours to 60 hours of Master's level training, do you mean to say that we should go back and nullfy the licenses people who had the 48 hour master's degree?

I would disagree that this is primarily a moral issue, unlike animal rights. Maybe a better equivalent to Harlow's experiments in modern times would be other, similar experiments done today. These are still experiments being done that technically harm animals, but they are designed in a way to minimize risk and require justifying not using alternatives. The species matters too.

Another issue that you will run into in the field of academia if you plan on being a researcher or holding your own in a field of scientists is that it appears that you adhere to an absolutist or objective moral system.

Again, I disagree here. I think it's probably a strength to be able to identify these issues and conceptualize projects that minimize risk. I've learned a lot about animal research. But I'm not ready to get rid of my personal beliefs about right and wrong. Many fine researchers hold moral, religious or personal beliefs that involve objective pronouncements: such as "God exists." These can coexist with being an effective scientist.

It's somewhat insulting to research if you only look at the references to a specific study. If you want to give an author full credit, you also have to look at the studies built from the studies that they created, and the studies built from them, and the studies that elaborate on them and so forth.

His ideas are out there to be critically evaluated. He has also contributed to the discussion about animal rights, to some degree. This is also part of his legacy no less than the studies.

 

[MBellows]

No, I think it is... we do this all the time with racism, sexism, and animal rights. We say it was a bad thing that homophobia used to be considered a mental disorder and that it was unfair that women used to not be able to vote, not that we can't comment because mores were different. We do judge things that took place in the past all the time.

I think you mean "homosexuality" and not homophobia, and I don't hold to the idea that we can't say that it was wrong, I just don't think that it's fair to judge them for it morally or to think "you should have known better" any more than it is to call the man that invented the spear stupid because he didn't invent the S&W 500.

I would disagree that this is primarily a moral issue, unlike animal rights. Maybe a better equivalent to Harlow's experiments in modern times would be other, similar experiments done today. These are still experiments being done that technically harm animals, but they are designed in a way to minimize risk and require justifying not using alternatives. The species matters too.

I think you missed the point of what my example was. The example was a primarily non-moral issue that uses the same premise (holding people of the past to current standards) without including issues of morality.

Again, I disagree here. I think it's probably a strength to be able to identify these issues and conceptualize projects that minimize risk.

I doubt anyone of sound mind will ever argue this point.

But I'm not ready to get rid of my personal beliefs about right and wrong. Many fine researchers hold moral, religious or personal beliefs that are well outside the norm.

Few people outside of the trans-Dawkinsonian atheists would push them to do so, and they have rather bizarre out of the norm beliefs themselves. What moral relativists do is say "I have my morals that I judge myself by and use to make my decisions, but as long as you aren't hurting someone else, I don't care how you act or what you believe." Now I give that there is a wide interpretation of "hurting" and what "someone else" is, but in the history of the west it is a common (and debatable) assumption that non-human animals don't count as "someone else."

His ideas are out there to be critically evaluated. He has also contributed to the discussion about animal rights, to some degree. This is also part of his legacy no less than the studies.

They are, and fortunately it's seen as wrong for people to try and recreate his results using his particular methods. I doubt anyone on this board will say that research isn't supposed to be re-evaluated because that's a fundamental part of the scientific method. It's just also a fundamental part of the scientific tradition that we base our hypotheses and tests of them off of previous research so that our body of knowledge is constantly growing. I was merely stating that it isn't fair to Harlow to only look at the discussion of one of his experiments. The value of his research has to be looked at cumulatively with all of the following research.

One additional note...

You say that species matters, that's subjective. Siddhartha Guatama would hold himself up in a monastery or cave during the growing and rebirth season to avoid trampling seedlings when they are at a fragile period. I'm sure if he applied his personal belief system to yours, he would be appalled to think of himself thinking of creatures like that. But then again, he was a moral relativist.

 

[cara susanna]

That podcast didn't shed any new light for me. It basically told me what I already knew: Zimbardo did a poor job limiting his involvement in the study, lost his objectivity, only stopped it because his girlfriend got mad about it, and now gets fame and publicity talking about his horrible ethical violations in a sheepish, "Whoops, my bad" kind of way.

 

[MBellows]

That podcast didn't shed any new light for me. It basically told me what I already knew: Zimbardo did a poor job limiting his involvement in the study, lost his objectivity, only stopped it because his girlfriend got mad about it, and now gets fame and publicity talking about his horrible ethical violations in a sheepish, "Whoops, my bad" kind of way.

I was actually more captivated by the idea of people from different backgrounds trying out similar experiments and getting different results. That and the "play" that they discuss sounds freaking amazing... So I may have had some halo effects from that part of the discussion.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, that economist's view was really interesting. I'm actually reading criticism of Zimbardo's study and its methodological flaws now, haha.

As a theatre fan, I liked how they integrated it with psych. 🙂

 

[MBellows]

Yeah, that economist's view was really interesting. I'm actually reading criticism of Zimbardo's study and its methodological flaws now, haha.

As a theatre fan, I liked how they integrated it with psych. 🙂

Totally off on a tangent now, but I wish they would come to Texas. There are several areas that I know of in the DFW area that have empty warehouses large enough to accommodate their show.

 

[futureapppsy2]

That podcast didn't shed any new light for me. It basically told me what I already knew: Zimbardo did a poor job limiting his involvement in the study, lost his objectivity, only stopped it because his girlfriend got mad about it, and now gets fame and publicity talking about his horrible ethical violations in a sheepish, "Whoops, my bad" kind of way.

This. To me the difference between Zimbardo and Harlow is Zimbardo just completely side-skirted ethics in numerous, blatant ways and didn't give a damn.

Plus, I do think the human v. animal component makes a difference---I'm not saying that animals should be abused or treated poorly for research just because they're animals, but a lot of, say, medical advances have involved subjecting animals to pathogenic conditions and then doing necropsies, which is equivalent to or worse than Harlow'a attachment stuff, IMO, and won't be going anywhere any time soon. I'm against animal testing if it's done willy-nilly without any controls, minimization of harm, or scientifically justifiable reasons, but I think, done responsibly, it can--and has--contributed a lot to medicine and psychology and is still a valid and necessary methodology, especially when human trials would be impossible, unethical, premature, or otherwise have an unacceptable risk of harm/death.

*waits for hate mail from PETA* (Even though they euthanize most of the animals they rescue, which makes zero sense to me).

 

[MBellows]

This. To me the difference between Zimbardo and Harlow is Zimbardo just completely side-skirted ethics in numerous, blatant ways and didn't give a damn.

Plus, I do think the human v. animal component makes a difference---I'm not saying that animals should be abused or treated poorly for research just because they're animals, but a lot of, say, medical advances have involved subjecting animals to pathogenic conditions and then doing necropsies, which is equivalent to or worse than Harlow'a attachment stuff, IMO, and won't be going anywhere any time soon. I'm against animal testing if it's done willy-nilly without any controls, minimization of harm, or scientifically justifiable reasons, but I think, done responsibly, it can--and has--contributed a lot to medicine and psychology and is still a valid and necessary methodology, especially when human trials would be impossible, unethical, premature, or otherwise have an unacceptable risk of harm/death.

*waits for hate mail from PETA* (Even though they euthanize most of the animals they rescue, which makes zero sense to me).

You know, because I'm oh so fond of constantly proving Godwin's Law... You know a country that didn't care to use animals for medical research? Nazi Germany... They had Jews for that.

And no, that wasn't meant as hateful or derogatory. In fact the Nazi medical experiments are some of the major reasons that the Internal Review Board standards were created with the idea of minimizing/eliminating harm to both participants and vulnerable populations that results may be generalized to.

 

[KillerDiller]

Generally, it's because it isn't seen as "fair" to hold people to current standards.

No, I think it is... we do this all the time with racism, sexism, and animal rights. We say it was a bad thing that homophobia used to be considered a mental disorder and that it was unfair that women used to not be able to vote, not that we can't comment because mores were different. We do judge things that took place in the past all the time.

Sure, we view times in history through our own modern lens of what is right and wrong, but this doesn't equate to "judging" everything that goes against current views as completely immoral and without merit. Would you say we should never read Huckleberry Finn because it is a racist novel that contains the "N" word? Can you not appreciate it for it's themes in the context of the culture of that time period?

 

[KillerDiller]

Few people outside of the trans-Dawkinsonian atheists would push them to do so, and they have rather bizarre out of the norm beliefs themselves.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious what you mean by this. As far as I know, Neo-Atheists don't ask anyone to set aside their morals. They just want people to understand that many moral beliefs are inherent--people don't need a God or a religious text to tell them that hurting others is wrong and that helping others is good. What are these bizarre beliefs you speak of?

 

[MBellows]

Sure, we view times in history through our own modern lens of what is right and wrong, but this doesn't equate to "judging" everything that goes against current views as completely immoral and without merit. Would you say we should never read Huckleberry Finn because it is a racist novel that contains the "N" word? Can you not appreciate it for it's themes in the context of the culture of that time period?

Incredibly off topic, and it's probably part of the point that you are trying to make, but I certainly wouldn't call Huckleberry Finn a racist novel. It portrayed the south the way that it was and used period dialect. The author was an incredible progressive who spoke out regularly for the black/AA community. Personally I think any other portrayal of the Old South would be racist because it would be a denial of the day to day hells faced by "people of color" in the time.

 

[MBellows]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious what you mean by this. As far as I know, Neo-Atheists don't ask anyone to set aside their morals. They just want people to understand that many moral beliefs are inherent--people don't need a God or a religious text to tell them that hurting others is wrong and that helping others is good. What are these bizarre beliefs you speak of?

I've brushed up against what I refer to as trans-Dawkinsonian atheists on several occasions. They tend to hold Dawkins up on a pedestal (not that he doesn't deserve it for his work on phylogenetics) for his sometimes over-the-line attacks on religious entities. I know this isn't incredibly common for Dawkins, but I think sometimes he gets a taste for blood when he debates topics and it's hard for me to criticize him because more often than I agree with what he has to say (unless it's about memes).

But I digress. You asked about what sort of bizarre beliefs, usually it involves generalizing all religious content as bad/delusional/negative. Occasionally I hear mention of it being good if religious entities/groups would just kill each other off.

As far as inherent morality, I think that is definitely one of the greatest accomplishments of the Neo-Atheist movement and it saddens me that it took this damn long for people to finally catch on.

But yeah. My comments were generally about a very very very small population within the massive population of atheists.

 

[KillerDiller]

Incredibly off topic, and it's probably part of the point that you are trying to make, but I certainly wouldn't call Huckleberry Finn a racist novel. It portrayed the south the way that it was and used period dialect. The author was an incredible progressive who spoke out regularly for the black/AA community. Personally I think any other portrayal of the Old South would be racist because it would be a denial of the day to day hells faced by "people of color" in the time.

I was being intentionally hyperbolic.

 

[MBellows]

I was being intentionally hyperbolic.

^^ Local schools actually tried to have the book removed because some parents thought the material was racist.

 

[KillerDiller]

I've brushed up against what I refer to as trans-Dawkinsonian atheists on several occasions. They tend to hold Dawkins up on a pedestal (not that he doesn't deserve it for his work on phylogenetics) for his sometimes over-the-line attacks on religious entities. I know this isn't incredibly common for Dawkins, but I think sometimes he gets a taste for blood when he debates topics and it's hard for me to criticize him because more often than I agree with what he has to say (unless it's about memes).

But I digress. You asked about what sort of bizarre beliefs, usually it involves generalizing all religious content as bad/delusional/negative. Occasionally I hear mention of it being good if religious entities/groups would just kill each other off.

As far as inherent morality, I think that is definitely one of the greatest accomplishments of the Neo-Atheist movement and it saddens me that it took this damn long for people to finally catch on.

But yeah. My comments were generally about a very very very small population within the massive population of atheists.

Fair enough. I was curious because I consider myself to be more or less a part of the Neo-Atheist movement. I occasionally disagree with Dawkins in the same manner as you point out here, though I have to credit him and his arguments with finally getting me to embrace the word "Atheist."

 

[KillerDiller]

^^ Local schools actually tried to have the book removed because some parents thought the material was racist.

I've heard about this happening. Fortunately, we got to read it in my public school. Unfortunately, it seemed to be assigned every single year and we never got to other "controversial" mainstays like Catcher in the Rye.

 

[printscreen]

Would you say we should never read Huckleberry Finn because it is a racist novel that contains the "N" word? Can you not appreciate it for it's themes in the context of the culture of that time period?

Nooo, no no no no. But I would say that any classroom or scholarly reading of Huckleberry Finn that suppressed a discussion of racism or tried to argue that the book does not engage with the theme of race, would be limited. It would be saying, "you can engage with this theme but not this other one, because some of the original audience of this book would not have found it relevant and/or it is outside the scope of what is strictly "literary."

From a certain perspective parts of the book would be hard to make sense of thematically without invoking the concept of racism. It ultimately would limit the meaning of the book to narrowly not explore these themes because a) the book a classic and b) the people who first read it might not have been offended by them. I don't think we should be suppressing the discussion, on the contrary.

In the end that's shaped by one cultural preference over another. Some schools teach the book. Because though it has racist themes there's also the idea that critically airing these issues matters. Also most classrooms that the book is being taught in aren't promoting or condoning racism. (Ultimately, I think the meaning and the context the book would be different if that wasn't the case).

Also M'bellows- I'm sure you won't like this but IMO the same values apply to the funded research for me. Ultimately most research is designed to be neutral or benign in its effects to humans, not harmful. (Ok, not animals, and not research on weapons, but I promise I'll get to that).

Aside from the counterfactuals (without Zimbardo, Harlow, Milgram, etc, would we know as much as we do.. which it's impossible to say) you mentioned the policy benefits of being able to say "children and prisoners should not be mistreated, because mistreated animals end up in poor shape." Honestly, it's weird to me to do the experiments on animals to prove these results are harmful in humans. This doesn't make sense to me. It seems circular.

If the rationale for using monkeys instead of humans is that they don't suffer as much, then how can the results of the suffering be generalized to humans? How do we know the behavior (social isolation, depression) is associated with suffering? If we know the monkeys are suffering, then why persist with the experiments beyond once they show signs of distress?

I guess I can appreciate why researchers might not naturally wonder these things without an appreciation of "animal rights" and the current approval board system, etc. I will say that. But it's not personal toward the researchers-- I guess I'm just agape at how different the standards were and how they could have NOT considered these things in a visceral way when dealing with the animals.

 

[MBellows]

Also M'bellows- I'm sure you won't like this but IMO the same values apply to the funded research for me. Ultimately most research is designed to be neutral or benign in its effects to humans, not harmful. (Ok, not animals, and not research on weapons, but I promise I'll get to that).

What values do you assume that I'm against? The value that research should have a minimized or non-existent negative effect? If that is the case then you must have misread what I wrote, or I must have not written clearly.

 

[printscreen]

While it hasn't always been this way, most scientists adhere to subjective morality because it's the easiest to defend.

What values do you assume that I'm against? The value that research should have a minimized or non-existent negative effect? If that is the case then you must have misread what I wrote, or I must have not written clearly.

^^^
Yeah, maybe. I am a little lost by the above... What would it mean to be "for" something just because it's the easiest thing to defend? Or is the first statement a more general one? I feel like I'm missing something here..

 

[MBellows]

While it hasn't always been this way, most scientists adhere to subjective morality because it's the easiest to defend.

What values do you assume that I'm against? The value that research should have a minimized or non-existent negative effect? If that is the case then you must have misread what I wrote, or I must have not written clearly.

^^^
Yeah, maybe. I am a little lost by the above... What would it mean to be "for" something just because it's the easiest thing to defend? Or is the first statement a more general one? I feel like I'm missing something here..

The first one was a general statement that I borrowed from the book above. In all actuality I should have certainly noted that, and thank you for bringing that back to my attention. As Killer and I discussed earlier, there are certain areas that an overpowering majority of people feel as being moral/amoral. I think most moral subjectivists would go as far as to agree with that.

It's also important to note that...

Ultimately most research is designed to be neutral or benign in its effects to humans, not harmful. (Ok, not animals, and not research on weapons, but I promise I'll get to that).

Is a question of ethics more than it is a question of morality.

 

[KillerDiller]

Nooo, no no no no. But I would say that any classroom or scholarly reading of Huckleberry Finn that suppressed a discussion of racism or tried to argue that the book does not engage with the theme of race, would be limited. It would be saying, "you can engage with this theme but not this other one, because some of the original audience of this book would not have found it relevant and/or it is outside the scope of what is strictly "literary."

I'm not sure that anyone would read Huckleberry Finn and claim that there are not issues of race present, or could otherwise ignore them all together. In my experience, as you articulated, it comes down to two camps--those that teach the book and address the cultural issues of the time, and those that don't, ignoring its literary merit because they want to avoid its inflammatory language.

The reason I brought this up in the first place was because your original post reminded me a bit of the second camp of thought. I think the use of animals in research is a very interesting and rich topic for discussion. I even consider myself especially prone to coming down on the side of protecting animals in research. However, you were attacking these researchers' entire careers, calling it "horrifying" that they work with children, as if they are monsters who take pleasure in hurting other living beings. The research they did was meant to benefit children. I don't find it horrifying or ironic that they now work in children's hospitals. By teaching and exploring the results of the Harlow studies, I don't believe we are promoting animal cruelty any more than we are promoting racism by teaching Huckleberry Finn.

 

[printscreen]

However, you were attacking these researchers' entire careers, calling it "horrifying" that they work with children, as if they are monsters who take pleasure in hurting other living beings. The research they did was meant to benefit children. I don't find it horrifying or ironic that they now work in children's hospitals. By teaching and exploring the results of the Harlow studies, I don't believe we are promoting animal cruelty any more than we are promoting racism by teaching Huckleberry Finn.

Fair enough... I can see it your way. But the thing is this: I'm not saying that they took pleasuring hurting human beings. And I'm not "horrified" so much as at a gut level, I see a contradiction. My sense is that it needs to be asked whether the experiments really did help. In the Milgram experiments, the subjects thought they were being helpful. That is why they cooperated with the authority. There is a light side, and there is a dark side to the research. Simply having good intentions is not good enough (and I'm not saying the researchers took pleasure in the study). For me to admire this research I would have to really see that it helped, which I don't see evidence of.

I'm considering it from the Kantian imperative: don't treat humans as means but as ends. Not all people would consider animals as part of that, but I see them as having enough consciousness that researchers should be aware of the effects of studies on them. This is based into the considerations of pain reduction: if it hurts a human, we can assume that it hurts an animal model. If it's written in a protocol, why isn't it also a principle worthy of really considering while going about the experiment?

I'm not saying we should "silence" what we don't agree with. But everyone has their personal heroes and guys they really look up to and for me it's not these guys.

Killer, yes, we have to go with the majority sometimes. Maybe for those researchers, their beliefs were shaped by their environment. I think the problem is even though it's too late to go back and change it, there's a sense of unsavoriness. It is impossible to justify the fact that the experiment involved sexual assault toward the monkeys (on wikipedia), at least for me. There are many many better ways to study trauma that recreating it in a lab setting. Is it hindsight? Yes. But these categories in thinking--- don't harm the less powerful, don't abuse research just out of curiosity-- to me, are more useful at the social level than whatever specific results came out of the experiments.