Harry Harlow's Article 'Discovering Love'

47). The supposedly medical nature of these studies, with the corresponding chance for advancing the health of the human species, is overcome by the fact that “animal models have questionable accuracy” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 58). A particularly chilling take-away from the studies Singer lists is that most of them end with a note along the lines of ‘further experimentation necessary’, implying that the researchers are involved in a self-fulfilling negative cycle where their personal pursuit for grant money, publication in peer reviewed journals, and the elusive accolades of their colleagues far overshadows the immense amount of suffering their studies are causing. Indeed, Singer presents his argument in a convincing format, with one account surpassing the next in its sheer lack of consideration for animals as living creatures. This reinforces his argument that humans are speciesists, prone to causing harm to non-humans without a thought if it means a slight (perceived) enhancement in their own state.

The experiment was very controversial because it was very unethical and the monkeys suffered a lot of pain, and in some cases died of overdose.

The experiments conducted in New York University’s research laboratories are cruel and the details are horrendously graphic. Researchers intentionally mutilate the eyes of the baby Macaque monkeys,

“According to animal welfare group Cruelty Free International, 3,612 experiments were carried out on primates in the UK last year”. A lot of researchers use primates because their most closely related to human. One thing that primate have in coming is that human and primate both feel emotions like fear, depression, anxiety, frustration and so on. These animal in the lab

The results of human biomedical research conducted on non-human primates is not as accurate as it would be if these tests were performed on humans themselves. One reason for results not being as accurate is that even though non-human primates share “similarities with human physiological and behavioral characteristics.”(60) with this in consideration we must remember these similarities do not mean that non-human primates are the same as humans. Even though humans and primates DNS is “85% to 95%”(CITE) similar there is still 5% to 15% that is different. This biological difference is one of the factors that adds to the ability that “we cannot derive final and conclusive results from animal and non-human primate experimentation.” (Quigley, 656) If it is scientifically proven that no concrete results can be derived from testing on non-human primates then this research is close to meaningless.

The experiment involved separating infant rhesus monkeys from their mother and providing a surrogate made of either soft cloth or wire (Harlow, 1958). The infant monkeys were not physically harmed, but the stress from open-field tests and the effect on attachment is emotionally harmful. This experiment would never be ethical on human children because it involves separating the child from their mother and experimenting with their attachment and love of their parent. It is also questionable if the actions and reactions of the rhesus monkeys can be directly applied to humans. Harlow claims that the bonding and affection responses of the monkeys and humans are the same, yet I believe there should be more research to compare the responses of humans versus those of rhesus monkeys. After all, one cannot apply the actions and responses of dogs to those of cats, even though biologically they too are rather

In the middle of the twentieth century, Harry and Margaret Harlow began to study the effects of body contact in terms of developmental attachment. Their breakthrough experiments involved infant monkeys separated from their mother near birth and raised in cages with two surrogate mothers: one a wire cylinder and the other wrapped in terry cloth. After varying such details as location of the feeding bottle, rocking, and warmth, the Harlows were startled to find that the monkeys bonded much more closely to the cloth mother, regardless of whether or not "she" provided the food. (Myers, 2011, pp. 149-151). In parallel to Harlow's monkeys was Victor, found in the forests of France in 1800, when he became the first feral child to be successfully restored to society as well as scientifically studied by Parisian doctor Jean Marc Itard. Followed by children of many ages hailing from the abandoned flats of the Ukraine to the urbanized and bustling streets of Los Angeles, CA, feral children were defined by their lack of human care, usually because of abusive or irresponsible parents. Such isolation from their own society often resulted in resorting to animals, especially dogs, for love and warmth, and to wild, abnormal behavior. None were able to completely and certainly bounce back from their cruel circumstances, a fact shown in their lack of humanity, as Itard defined it, in one of two areas: emotional empathy or liguistic communication. ("Wild Child The Story Of Feral Children

Harry Frederick Harlow was probably best known for his experimentations on monkeys to discover the effect of maternal-separation, what exactly were the dependency needs on a living being, and experiments in social isolation for the subject. His research showed the rest of society the importance of companionship and caregiving to social as well as cognitive development. Speculators believe that part of the reason Harlow was so obsessed with these kinds of studies was because he didn’t have a very good childhood himself. Even at an early age, he claimed to struggle with depression. His mother and father weren’t extremely involved in his life as well. This possibly led him to gain so much interest in the study of essentially love and how it effected other people that you may be close with.

In 1958, Harry Harlow studied the priorities of these needs in his cloth and wire mother experiments. Baby monkeys separated from their mothers at birth were placed in isolation. Two dolls were placed in the cage, one wrapped in

During the 1960s, you created various controversial experiments regarding the basis of love and affection by showing the catastrophic effects of depriving young monkeys from their mothers. Your experiments were quite unethical and devastatingly cruel, but overall it gave science a fundamental base for understanding child development. In your experiment you constructed two surrogate mothers, one made out of wire who dispensed milk, and the other who was also made out of wire but covered with soft terry cloth. Your observation was that the young monkeys would choose the cloth mother over the mother who provided food, but my question to you is why, instead of using primates, why did you not use less complex organisms? And if you had already collected

Harlow is still considered controversial for his popular Wire Mother Experiment. This experiment took young monkeys away from their mothers, and replaced them with either a cloth mother, or a wire mother instead. This revealed the impact of contact a mother during infancy. While terrified, the young monkeys would run to the cloth mother for comfort rather than the wire mother even though the wire mother was the source of food. Harlow would say that infants will experience failure to thrive if not cared for properly by a

In chapter six Slater mentions to us Fout, who believes that sacrificing animals for research is morally questionable. She adds that Mason is not “sure whether the ends justify the means” (Slater 148-149). However, Morgan claims that “human life is more valuable than animal life” (Slater 150). Which I personally don’t agree it justifiable to use animals in research for many reasons, for example Slater states “Some of the cloth-mothered monkeys began to display autistic-like features, rocking and biting themselves, sores blossoming open on their black arms, the blood rising up through the fur like bright pulp. Infections set in. One cloth-mothered monkey chewed off its entire hand something, now he saw, something had gone terribly, terribly

I would like to make it known that I was completely and utterly appalled by this study. It was severely unethical to implement these infant primates to such a crude experiment. By simply observing the short video clip, you can see clearly the inhumane approach these young mammals endured from the scene where the infants move between the makeshift nursing wire caregiver and the cloth caregiver. I am pleased to know today we have better guidelines in place that prohibit these forms of studies from being further

In today’s society, human interaction is a must. People crave relationships to fill a void in life, feeding off of others in order to succeed as well as develop the social skills needed to persevere in the world. Human interaction (such as building relationships with loved ones) is a very critical and crucial part in life. In 1932, an experiment by Harry Frederick Harlow- a well known psychologist- involving rhesus monkeys was conducted. In this experiment, Harlow and his colleagues separated newborn rhesus monkeys from their mothers, holding each one in isolation chambers. The study showed that when placed in total isolation for the first eights months of life, denying all contact with other infants or with either type of surrogate mother, they were permanently damaged. The need to be accepted and cared for by another person (or in this case primate) is inevitable. In the novel, “The Fault In Our Stars”, a theme surrounding relationships is present and plays a major role in developing the story. John Green not only shows the effects of cancer and its side effects, he also shows how those detriments on the one fighting the battle can affect friends and family around them, as well as the importance of building relationships while you still can. The protagonist, Hazel Grace Lancaster, closes out the world and everyone in it, in hopes of minimizing her path of destruction that will be made after she dies. On the other hand, Augustus Waters is the light at the end of her