Pit of Despair Isolation Experiment: Why Is It Considered One of the Most Unethical Studies of Modern Science?

In the late-1960s, a scientist designed a scientific apparatus to understand the nature of depression and loneliness.

Pit of Despair Explained

The isolation experiment was conducted by American psychologists Harry F. Harlow and Stephen J. Suomi to produce an animal model of depression. They wanted to better understand the condition with the hope of finding possible treatments.

In this study, rhesus macaque monkeys were placed into a huge vertical cone-shaped, hard, cold stainless steel structure. The floor was made from wire mesh, allowing poop to drop from the bottom. Inside this pit, the monkeys were fed and given drinking water but left alone for weeks.

The device was named "pit of despair" by Harlow. The idea behind this setup was to reflect the emotional feelings experienced by humans with severe depression. According to Harlow, depressed humans feel like being sunk into a well of loneliness and hopelessness. From this description, they built an instrument that met the criteria of the pit.

While inside the vertical chamber, most monkeys fell into a still and crowded state within days. These monkeys could not return to normal social behavior when removed from the device. Harlow further described that the animals subjected to the pit of despair for 30 days would not play, avoided social interaction, and showed no sign of curiosity. The majority of the monkeys under study remained still in a huddle position while clasping their bodies with their hands. The profound anomalies in the monkeys' behaviors remained months after being fed from the device.

Although Harlow argued that the device held potential in studying the nature of depression, it is still unclear whether this area of research provided any real insights into clinical depression or any possible approaches to overcome it.

Ethics of Animal Testing

Throughout biomedical research, animals have been repeatedly and extensively used. Even during the times of early Greek physicians such as Aristotle and Galen, experiments were performed on living animals.

Over recent years, animal protection and animal rights groups have criticized using animals for research. Since the 17^th century, there have been debates on the ethical issues of animal testing. As a result, legislation has been passed in various countries to make the practice more humane.

Those who are against animal testing argue that the benefit to humans of such studies does not justify the harm imposed on animals. They believe that animals are inferior to humans and are very different from us, so the results from animal testing cannot be applied to us. On the other hand, those who favor animal testing contend that experiments on animals are essential for advancing medical and biological knowledge.

Since the issues of animal cruelty and humane treatments are valid concerns, the use of animals in research studies has been greatly regulated. Advocates of animal rights promote the 3Rs campaign, which includes the search for replacement of animals with non-living models, reduction in the use of animal samples, and the refinement of animal testing practices.

In 2018, the National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT) released the Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research. It aims to provide ethical guidelines for researchers and other individuals who want to perform animal experiments.

Check out more news and information on Animal Testing in Science Times.