Harlow's experiments were very controversial and some cite them as one of the causes of the animal rights movement. Last week you learned about the different research methods used by psychologists: experiments, natural observation, case studies, and surveys.

Do you think Harlow could have studied the question of motherhood in a more ethical manner? If so, what method could he have used instead?

If not, write a post defending Harlow's choice to conduct his experiment in this way.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

I think Harlow could have contemplated a different approach in studying the question of motherhood in a more ethical manner. However, he never thought of doing damage to the animals on purpose.

When you do research, there could have been methods that are questionable but that is when you have to look for the intention is the scientist. When dealing with animals, you have to be very careful to never make them suffer. Now, regarding psychological suffering, here we have a controversial issue.

So after these considerations, Harlow's choice to do his research was good for that time. He had the support of the University of Wisconsin, in Madison WI. The rhesus macaque never suffered from physical damage. I think the fact that Harlow would use two inanimate mothers for the experiment, was the best approach at that time, although it is understandable that people who loved animals began to question his methods and started some protests.

this statement is true.

forests are public goods, available for everybody. when usage of such a good becomes interesting for consumers and its usage increases, there can be a risk of overexploitation. it is a non rival good therefore, if one person consumes the good it does not reduce the availability for subsequent consumers.

these caracteristics require the establishment of measures in order to prevent the destruction of a commonly owned space, for example, to restrict the amount of people that have access to the same time.