|
1. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PSYCHOLOGY
STUDENTS FOR THEIR RIGHTS VIEWS
In their important analysis, Gluck and
Kubacki (1991, Ethics and Behavior) describe how
one response to the current debate over the use
of animals in research is the adoption by
biomedical and psychology researchers of a
"strategic defensive posture." These researchers
talk as if they were in a "state of siege.
"Regrettably, the following accounts of the
recent experiences of two psychology students
illustrate that the effects of this posture
extend beyond rhetoric.
The first involves a student who applied to a
Ph.D. program in biological psychology at an
Oklahoma university. At the time of her
application she had earned a masters in
psychology, worked full-time in a lab doing
health-care research, and taught at a local
junior college. Her academic career had been
stellar (a 4.0 average) and she had published
research papers. She was recommended to the
graduate program by her boss, the head of the
lab which was closely affiliated with the
graduate program. After an interview with the
director of the program, she was accepted with
full funding ($1300/month) and told she had been
a "shoe-in." Delighted with the offer, she gave
up an offer from another doctoral program and
her part-time teaching position.
Shortly thereafter, she was notified by the
director that she would be further interviewed,
merely as a formality. However, this "formality"
lasted 6 hours, with different members of the
faculty interviewing her sequentially in pairs.
The ordeal centered around concern about her
affiliation with animal rights groups and
whether she might be an "infiltrator." It
appears that as an undergraduate she had been
the winner of a research/essay contest sponsored
by PSYETA and that currently she was involved in
a vegetarian group. Her study had demonstrated
that people shown photographs of animals in
invasive experiments subsequently viewed animal
research less favorably than a group shown
pictures of animals in non-invasive experimental
situations. It was also intimated that she had
stolen some animal research data.
As a result of the interview, her fiscal
support was withdrawn. The student decided to
refuse admission to the program because of the
financial issue, but, more importantly, because
she felt she could not risk committing herself
to a situation where hostility and suspicion of
her was so great.
The second account has a more positive
outcome, although the theme is the same. An
undergraduate psychology major, enrolled in an
upper level course in experimental psychology,
requested an alternative lab exercise. In her
formal request to the departmental committee,
she indicated that her personal code of ethics
prevented her from participating in a lab in
which rats are deprived of food and water. Her
offer to do an alternative lab involving
software or another project was rejected and she
was informed that she could not graduate without
meeting the lab requirement. In discussion with
her, her instructor indicated that she should
not be in psychology and should change majors.
Following letters to the dean from her and from
PSYETA in her behalf, she was given the right to
do an alternative lab with the stipulation that
she provide the alternative and find an
instructor to supervise her. She was able to do
this by enlisting a psychologist at a campus 200
miles from her own.
2. MANDATING THE REPORTING OF ANIMAL ABUSE
In an earlier newsletter (Winter 1994), we
noted that there is a growing body of evidence
that violent behavior toward human and nonhuman
animals are linked: violence toward animals is
both a precursor and effect of violence toward
and abuse of humans. We have described this
linkage more fully in our slide presentation,
The Culture of Violence: The Animal Connection,
and in a coauthored cover story in The Animals'
Agenda (March/April 1994), also under that
title.
There are several important implications for
change that follow from this "tangled web" of
abuse. One is that changingthe ways in which the
culture presents animals, e.g., the degree of
violence toward animals in TV cartoons, may
reduce violence in real settings toward both
animals and humans. A second is that teaching
empathy toward animals may reduce violence
toward both classes of objects, and may increase
empathy toward humans.
A third implication and the focus of a new
PSYETA campaign involves the reporting of animal
abuse. The American Psychological Association's
(APA's) Working Group on Child Abuse and Neglect
concluded that child protection systems should
focus on early intervention and detection to
reduce the number of incidents of child abuse.
Reporting animal abuse is one way of
implementing this early detection as, often,
animals are the first victims in abusive family
systems. Currently, two states, California and
Colorado, require such reporting to law
enforcement authorities. However, the obligation
is limited to veterinarians and to certain
species and activities - largely staged animal
fights.
Such reporting should be mandated in much
broader circumstances. We would like to see
psychologists and allied health providers assume
an obligation to report animal abuse.
At present, most states require medical and
other health and social service personnel,
including psychologists and allied mental health
and educational counselors, to report instances
of child abuse, as well as, in some states,
abuse of the elderly and handicapped. For
example, Massachusetts very broadly defines both
what constitutes abuse and the class of
occupations whose personnel are obligated to
report abuse.
In the field of psychology, professional
codes of ethics implicitly recognize this
obligation. In its "Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct," The APA
exempts practicing psychologists from
maintaining the confidentiality of the
client/therapist relation when such disclosure
is mandated by law, particularly to protect the
client or others from harm.
We feel that psychologists, particularly
those of us interested in animal welfare, are in
a position to spearhead policy changes in this
area. For as a profession we both conduct the
research that demonstrates the connection
between violence to human and nonhuman animals
and, in our practices, all too frequently
confront instances of violence and abuse. This
means that workers in both human and nonhuman
animal settings should be obligated to
cross-report - to report instances of violence
and abuse to any living being to the appropriate
authorities.
In the coming months, PSYETA will develop
mechanisms to encourage such a policy. If any of
you would like to be involved in this project or
have some ideas about it, please contact the
executive director, Ken Shapiro (301-963-4751),
or the following members of the Board of
Directors: Manny Bernstein (518-891-4140), Theo
Capaldo (508-352-8175), or Lorin Lindner
(310-477-3116).
3. MARCH FOR THE ANIMALS
On June 23, 1996, the animal advocacy
community will gather at the Ellipse in
Washington, DC for the second mass March for the
Animals. Like that March in 1990, this event
promises to be a historic moment. Organized by
the National Alliance for Animals and sponsored
by numerous groups, the march itself will be the
culmination of a week of major events in the
capital. The enclosed brochure describes the
events and provides information about travel,
accommodations, as well as suggestions about how
you can help organize and promote World Animal
Awareness Week in your locale.
PSYETA is pleased to be a sponsor and member
of the planning committee of the 1996 March, as
we were in the first March. We feel these
gatherings are critical to the task of keeping
animal issues before the public, to the
continued expansion of the movement, and to
promoting cohesiveness within the movement.
To provide a rallying point for psychologists
and others who support us in this endeavor,
PSYETA is hosting a social hour on the eve of
the March. Featured guest speakers at the social
hour are Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, psychiatrist
and coauthor of the highly acclaimed book When
Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals
and Roger Fouts, cofounder of Friends of Washoe
and PSYETA board member. Fouts forthcoming book
on chimpanzee communication and efforts to
obtain better treatment of primates in captivity
is being considered for production as a
full-length commercial movie.
Since we want to provide you an opportunity
to meet with the guest speakers, as well as with
members of the Board and staff of PSYETA, we are
limiting the event to a small group. Please be
sure to return the enclosed response card as
soon as possible to reserve your space.
4. UPDATE ON NYU PSYCHOLOGIST CHARGED WITH
VIOLATIONS BY USDA*
As reported in our July 1995 newsletter, in
April of that year the US Department of
Agriculture filed formal charges against Ron
Wood for failing to inform oversight authorities
of severe water deprivation conditions imposed
on his monkey subjects and for inadequate
veterinary care resulting in the death of three
subjects in his primate addiction studies. Since
then, his New York University- based laboratory
has been closed down, the experiments suspended.
Wood himself is on an indefinite leave of
absence.
In a related incident, the USDA is
investigating NYU for possible attempts to
cover-up Wood's violations of the Animal Welfare
Act (AWA) and for retaliation against Jan
Moor-Jankowski, who blew the whistle on Wood.
Former director of NYU's Laboratory for
Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates (LEMSIP),
Moor-Jankowski was fired without notice or
explanation and LEMSIP was given to the Coulston
Foundation, a New Mexico-based lab itself
recently charged with violations of the AWA.
*Much of this information is from In Defense
of Animals.
5. PSYETA ANNOUNCES BOARD OF ADVISORS
PSYETA is delighted to announce the formation
of a Board of Advisors. The following respec ted
animal advocates are offering their expertise:
Birute Galdikas and Jane Goodall, foremost
investigators and advocates of, respectively,
orangutans and chimpanzees; Jeffrey Moussaieff
Masson, coauthor of the recent important book on
emotion in nonhuman animals; and Peter Singer,
seminal animal rights philosopher. PSYETA wishes
to thank Theo Capaldo, Roger Fouts, and Ken
Shapiro for approaching our distinguished
advisory board members to serve in this
important capacity. 6. SUPPORT PSYETA
6. CONTRIBUTIONS AND BEQUESTS
Contributions. Thank you
very much for your past support. Without your
help, we cannot continue our work. Please check
the mailing label on your envelope as it
indicates the date when you last made a
contribution. We appreciate your contribution on
an annual, or if you prefer, more frequent
basis. PSYETA is a 501(C)(3) non-profit
organization; your contributions are tax
deductible.
At the end of 1995 we asked you, through an
appeal, to help us expand the Culture of
Violence presentation into a video. We would
like to thank those of you who gave so
generously and enabled us to get this very
important project off the ground.
Wish-list for 1996. Copier
with automatic feed to cope with increased
workload. Can anyone spare one?
Bequests. Persons wishing to
become benefactors of PSYETA should consult an
attorney or incorporate the following provisions
carefully into their wills. "I bequeath to
Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, P.O. Box 1297, Washington Grove, MD
20880, the sum of _________" to be applicable to
the general purposes of the organization. Or if
so desired, you may designate a specific purpose
for the money.
|
