|
PSYETA
Video Highlights Anti-Violence Campaign
Popular magazines,
countless newspapers, and broadcasts throughout the U.S. report with astonishment
and puzzlement the shootings of children by children, of dedicated parents
by their teenage son, and other killings by young people. Legislators debate
endlessly the subtleties of anti-gun proposals, purchase bulletproof vests
for police officers, and wring their hands over song lyrics and television
scenes they claim encourage violent acts. Meanwhile, the rapidly growing
prison industry is some communities' largest employer. Whatever snipping
and pruning may go on, violence remains our most notorious crop.
PSYETA
Video Says No to Violence
Recognizing the
potential of education to prevent violence more effectively than police
departments and prisons can, PSYETA presents Beyond Violence: The Human-Animal
Connection.
The video's central
message: Respect for animals is respect for human beings, and hurting animals
hurts human beings. When an adult harms a child in a household with a dog,
cat, or other animal, all too likely the animal has also been abused. And
vice versa: A kicked cat often means a beaten boy or girl. When social
scientists study violent criminals, including notorious serial killers,
a similar pattern emerges: Before killing or assaulting human beings, these
criminals victimized animals.
Before he shot
24 people, killing one classmate, at a Springfield, Oregon, high school
cafeteria this year, Kip Kinkel, 15, decapitated cats and mounted their
heads on the ends of sticks. Jeffrey Dahmer, "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz,
and other widely known multiple murderers likewise began their violent
journeys by torturing and killing animals. PSYETA Executive Director Ken
Shapiro, Ph.D., says, "Routinely getting away with crimes against animals
desensitizes people to the suffering of others and the value of life, both
human and animal."
The
FBI recognizes that violent crimes against animals predict violent crimes
against human beings. Despite this knowledge, schools and families do not
ensure that children learn compassion and respect for animals.
Aimed at the average
American with a desire, but not always the wherewithal, to help eliminate
the cruelest crimes, Beyond Violence: The Human-Animal Connection
profoundly but plainly shows that all citizens share responsibility for
those least able to protect themselves. And it explains how to fulfill
that responsibility. Beyond Violence provides 12 minutes of education designed
to succeed in actually reducing violence -- where so much empty
rhetoric and so many big-budget programs fail.
Video
Follows Successful Slide Show
Beyond Violence
is based on a slide show PSYETA produced in the early 90s. Having benefitted
more than 100 humane societies, human service agencies, and educational
groups throughout the U.S., the slide show has helped people learn more
sympathetic attitudes toward animals.
How do we know?
Psychology Professor and PSYETA Board Vice President Lorin Lindner, Ph.D.,
and Paul F. Cunningham, Ph.D. (see also
Making Strides),
separately designed questionnaires to measure changes in people's views
of animals. Both found that people who viewed the slide show considered
several forms of animal exploitation unacceptable afterwards that they
had found tolerable before. According to Shapiro, "The slide show has shown
thousands that the quality of life and sometimes life itself depends on
strengthening empathy for animals."
California
Legislators Rise to the Occasion; PSYETA Supports New Law
Government and
the court system too often neglect PSYETA's and others' calls for laws
recognizing the serious animal-abuse problem our country faces and its
connections to the broader violence problem. Recent stiff sentences in
widely publicized animal-cruelty cases indicate judges are beginning to
appreciate their important role. The recent increase to 20 of the number
of states with felony animal-cruelty statutes is also encouraging. However,
system-wide approaches are needed.
In the Spring 1998
issue of PSYETA News, we reported that Lorin Lindner spoke about the link
between animal and human abuse at a March 11th press conference in Sacramento,
in support of California Senate Bill 1991, which mandates psychological
counseling for anyone convicted of animal abuse. California Senator Jack
O'Connell, who introduced the bill, said, "Although clinicians know that
future dangerousness is difficult to predict, probably one of the best
predictors of future violence is a history of violence toward nonhuman
animals." Dr. Lindner said, "The message we of PSYETA want to ring clear
here is that violence is violence, no matter who is the victim." The law
will take effect January 1, 1999.
Other animal-advocacy
organizations and some law-enforcement agencies supported passage of the
new law, along with PSYETA. On September 14, 1998, the bill was signed
into law by Governor Pete Wilson after passing the state Assembly in August
in a unanimous vote.
Nine other states'
cruelty statutes mention counseling, but in those states, as previously
in California, judges decide, based solely on their discretion, whether
or not to require counseling. Says Lindner on behalf of PSYETA, "We're
delighted with the new law and grateful to Senator Jack O'Connell for introducing
it and to Governor Wilson for signing it. This is a signal to other states
to take animal abuse seriously."
PSYETA
and ASPCA Join Forces Against Force
In another major
attack on violence, PSYETA is teaming up with the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) to train mental health professionals
in the treatment of animal abusers. We will make sure judges, prosecutors,
and other law-enforcement officials receive information about the process
so they can take appropriate action. Beginning in New York, the nation's
largest city and home to the ASPCA, the program will expand quickly into
other communities.
"Our goal is to
have the abuser take responsibility for the crime and to commit to permanently
alter his or her violent behavior," PSYETA Program Director Mary Lou Randour,
Ph.D., says. "We will prevent repeat offenses by identifying animal abusers
and working with them before they appear in court for additional crimes
against animals or human beings."
As planning of
this groundbreaking program nears completion and the program gets underway,
we shall keep you informed.
Get
Beyond
Violence Beyond PSYETA!
It is up to you,
PSYETA's supporters, who understand the horrors of animal abuse and eschew
all forms of violence, to make sure those who are less informed about PSYETA's
work to disseminate the 20th Century's most important lesson: Violence
against one is violence against all.
Billions of animals
are still subjected to factory farming and inhumane slaughter each year,
millions to laboratory experimentation, classroom exercises and dissection,
to homelessness and euthanasia, and to hunting, trapping, and poisoning.
If that sounds
to you more like a Dark Age than an enlightened society, help us turn on
the lights! Order your copy of Beyond Violence: The Human-Animal Connection;
show it in your home and in local schools and meeting places; and know
that you are making a difference for the animals and your entire world.
For ordering information, see
order page.
Who We Are
Ken Shapiro,
Executive Director
Mary Lou Randour, Program Director
Susie Burt, Development Director
Fran Albrecht, Copy Editor
David Cantor, PSYETA News Editor
Kadd Stephens, Administrative and
Technical Asst.
Laura Worsham, Journals Copy Editor
Chip Craver, Development Consultant
Allen Schubert, Web Master
Members of the Board
Sudhir P.
Amembal, President
Lorin Lindner, Ph.D., Vice-President
Emmanuel Bernstein, Ph.D., Cofounder
Susan Curtiss, Ph.D.
Lynne Dow, Ph.D.
Deborah H. Fouts, M.S.
Carole Rayburn, Ph.D.
F. Barbara Orlans, Ph.D.
Board of Advisors
Roger S. Fouts,
Ph.D.
Jane Goodall, Ph.D.
Birute Galdikas, Ph.D.
Peter Singer, D.Phil.
Speaking Up for Animals on
Campus, Part 2
Carol D. Raupp, Ph.D.,
California State University, Bakersfield
Part 1 of this article appeared in the
Summer 1998 PSYETA News. It described the
process by which California State University at
Bakersfield established an animal research
facility. Following the author's sole dissenting
vote within her department, the University
Academic Senate passed its Policy and Procedures
for the Protection of Animals in Research and
Education. The document establishing the
government-mandated Institutional Animal Care
and Use Committee (IACUC) gained approval with
only 6 of 15 Senators voting for it, many
abstaining. At the end of Part 1, the author's
sense of responsibility impelled her to do what
she could for the animals despite the stacked
deck presented by the IACUC.
"Special" Treatment
I submitted my application for the IACUC to
administrators, emphasizing my professional
expertise in human-animal studies and associated
ethical issues. The person coordinating
nominations approached me informally and asked
if I were willing to serve. Since competition
for such positions is rare at my campus, I felt
so certain of appointment that I announced my
nomination to some colleagues.
One of the Senators who had spoken up for
compassion at the meetings was also asked about
serving. Months passed. In January 1998, no
IACUC appointments having been announced, I
expressed my frustration to the member of my
department who had sponsored the animal
laboratory. I discovered that my name had not
been recommended to the President of the
university. I immediately called the President's
office and for the first time in my employment
requested a personal meeting.
The President said he wished he had known of
my interest, but the appointments were already
made. They included the campus safety officer, a
veterinarian, and two community representatives:
a minister and the executive director of the
local zoo. Five faculty were appointed. As
mandated, three were experienced in using
animals for research. The two non-researcher
faculty were the Senators who had spoken up for
animals during campus meetings, but neither had
a background in this area. I felt crushed and
defeated.
Rebuffed Again
One of these compassionate faculty
appointees had not been asked in advance about
her willingness to serve. She was put in the
unenviable position of turning down a
high-profile Presidential appointment. Within
hours of her declination, I hand-delivered to
the President, the Vice President, and the
Senate Chair my request to be considered for
this open position. A few days later I received
a brief letter thanking me for my interest but
stating that yet another faculty member had been
agreed upon by the recommending committee and
had accepted--a member of the Philosophy
Department not previously known for involvement
in animal research issues.
Animal Research Plods Ahead
Remodeling of the rooms to be used for the
laboratory continued. Animals would arrive
within days, yet the IACUC had not convened.
Scuttlebutt reached me that it would meet on
February 20th, in the last few days of the
winter quarter. On February 17th, campus members
of the IACUC received six proposals to review in
just three days! -- among them, I was told, a
proposal that involved cutting into fully
conscious animals without anesthesia (not true,
as it turned out). I asked the campus newspaper
to cover the meeting because of its general
interest and the possible vivisection proposal.
Not knowing whether I would be allowed to
attend the meeting, I prepared a list of
proposed policy changes and showed up. Seven
members attended the meeting--the minister and
the recently-appointed philosophy professor did
not, due to scheduling conflicts that could not
be changed on short notice. Meeting status was
addressed first: meetings would be open except
for voting on research projects. I could be
there for most of the meeting. The IACUC then
discussed and passed two proposals involving
killing rats following drug administration,
exercise, and anesthetized surgery. It approved
the laboratory course using rats in operant
conditioning that was the original impetus for
establishing the facility. Then it accepted two
"noninvasive" projects involving the sensitivity
of rats and mice to ultraviolet light, and an
educational activity using rats to demonstrate
measurement of metabolism and then killing them
-- already done in classes for years, as pointed
out in someone's testy query as to why it should
be reviewed at all.
Respect, Concern Lacking
Though much of the time a serious tone was
maintained, some laughed about why the surgical
studies use only female rats and about the food
deprivation imposed to "motivate" the rats in
the operant conditioning course. No one knew the
total number of animals to be involved in the
approved projects, because some might be used
repeatedly. And key questions about potential
harm to animals went unasked. No one asked the
laboratory's sponsor for empirical data showing
that use of living animals is superior to use of
computer-software simulations for educating
students about operant conditioning. No one
asked the biologist in the surgical study
whether the drug has side effects, what the
equivalent amount of exercise would be in
humans, or what is the likelihood of rats'
coming out of anesthesia before being killed. No
one asked why a classroom activity that has
killed animals for years has not been replaced
with a non-lethal alternative.
The meeting ended with a tour of the new
facility, a tiny tiled room with a rack of
cages. The committee approved the room for use
as an animal facility. This also included
approval of the initial plan for running the
laboratory--a plan I had seen briefly that
indicated "surplus" animals would either be
killed by gas or sold.
The policy changes I recommended were set
aside due to lack of time, to be taken up at the
next meeting, likely to be in the fall quarter.
However, there was a pressing need to develop
and approve a variety of standard operating
procedures (SOPs), such as record-keeping for
use of chemicals.
Sad Reality
The Animal Research Facility at California
State University, Bakersfield, opened in April
1998. In a windowless cubicle tucked away behind
a wall you pass as you walk down the hallway in
our main classroom building, barren shoebox-size
cages each hold a rat or a mouse--a
being with a will to live and to express his
or her own individual rat or mouse nature. Some
students and staff members have told me they are
appalled. Most people on campus seem oblivious.
Some continue to ask if the lab is open yet.
One member of my department expressed
surprise that I did not seem to be "doing
anything." What, I asked, did he expect me to
do? I removed the many layers of cartoons from
my office door and posted a stark list of my
objections to the laboratory's practices and to
my exclusion from the IACUC. I fasted for 24
hours every Monday during the spring quarter in
sympathy with the beings used in the laboratory.
More Procedural Plodding
In the last week of classes for the 1997-98
academic year, I was still waiting for the IACUC
to take up the issues I had submitted in
February. The laboratory had operated without
duly approved SOPs for weeks. I learned on June
3rd that the second meeting of the IACUC would
take place on June 5th. (The IACUC did not begin
to distribute notice of meetings until Fall
1998.) I had a class scheduled when the IACUC
met on June 5th, and I received no agenda for
the meeting. It might take up the policy changes
I had requested without my being there, or it
might table them again until fall. It might
approve new projects. Meanwhile, as the school
year ended, the rats and mice in the laboratory
would become "surplus," unused and obsolete.
Unlike spare pencils or envelopes, they would
not be held over for next year. They would
probably be gassed to death.
Along with work toward their SOPs, the IACUC
did take up some of my proposed policy changes
on June 5th. I attended after my class ended and
did what I could to advocate for the changes,
without adequate preparation. The committee
agreed to develop more detailed criteria for
reviewing proposals, about the projects' costs
to animals. They agreed to have unwanted or ill
animals killed by lethal injection instead of
gas--a change I could only hope would prevent
some suffering. The proposal for a conscientious
objector policy for students was seen as
inappropriate for the IACUC--I was asked to take
it up with the academic affairs committee.
Enrichment of habitat for the animals was tabled
for another time.
Suffering Approved
Over the summer, the animals who had
survived experiments were not killed, because
new projects using them were foreseen for the
fall. On October 9, 1998, the IACUC met for the
third time. The member from Philosophy did not
attend because of a scheduling conflict. Once
again, although I requested them ahead of time,
I had no agenda or materials, the chair not
being sure it is legal to provide materials to
me. Several SOPs were approved, including a form
for reviewing projects that incorporates some of
Field's and Shapiro's scale for assessing
potential suffering.
Two projects were presented. This time, the
researchers were clearer about what they were
doing, and more questions were asked, including
by me. Both projects result in the death of the
animals--one is an acute toxicity test using
hundreds of minnows; the other is another
exercise and surgical study using rats. About 30
to 40 of 100 minnows shipped to the campus can
be expected to die in transport, according to
the researcher. Both projects were approved.
Another Year, Another Try
We now approach the time when the first
members of the committee reach the end of their
one-year terms--initial appointments ranged from
one to three years to stagger them. The IACUC
has clearly been a tremendous emotional drain
for the non-researcher member whose term is
ending, and she will be deciding whether to
request reappointment. I have asked the IACUC
Chair to let me know as soon as this is decided
and have asked that the philosophy professor be
approached about his commitment to serve, given
his absences. If either leaves the IACUC, I will
once again try for appointment.
The IACUC Chair acknowledges that I have been
making constructive contributions, but he will
not recommend me because he believes I would
provide an automatic "no" vote. He believes the
researchers on the committee are able
to make discriminative "cost-benefit"
judgments, but I am not. If I cannot gain
appointment, I will continue to speak up for the
animals from a visitor's seat, in a room where
the animals themselves have no voice.
PROPOSED APA DIVISION
HUMAN-ANIMAL RELATIONS
The
proposed APA Division on Human-Animal
Relations is concerned with the human
experience of nonhuman animals and the mutual
interaction and influence between human and
nonhuman animals.
The Division on Human-Animal Relations
encompasses a broad range of phenomena that have
immediate and enduring relevance for
psychologists. The Division on Human-Animal
Relations would examine the relationship
between animal abuse and human violence,
particularly domestic violence and child abuse,
and the role of animals in human psychology and
socialization, such as the role of companion
animals in family life, in aging, and in the
development of empathy and moral development.
Other areas of interest for the Division on
Human-Animal Relations include studying the
many ways in which animals play a vital role in
human health, including benefits from
pet-assisted therapies, promoting recovery from
illness, and the development of self-esteem.
Still other areas include: human attitudes
toward the use and treatment of animals;
personality differences in attitudes toward
animals; animals in science, culture and
politics, e.g., attitudes toward, and the
effectiveness of, the use of animals in
research, animals in religion and spirituality,
and the symbolic role of animals.
Making
Strides
Human-Animal Studies Division:
Signature Drive Begins
Mary Lou
Randour led the first organizational meeting of
the proposed Human-Animal Studies Division
of the American Psychological Association (APA)
at the APA annual meeting in San Francisco.
Twenty-two psychologists took part--an
excellent turnout and a good start
toward obtaining the more-than-800 APA-member
signatures needed to establish the Division.
The discussion centered on strategies for
collecting the needed signatures. (See insert
for details.)
PSYETA Symposium in San Francisco
The
Summer 1998 PSYETA News mentioned a symposium
scheduled for August 15th, at the American
Psychological Association's annual meeting in
San Francisco: Shared Status of Women and
Animals: Theory, Research and Treatment,
chaired by Mary Lou Randour. Those who attended
were enthusiastic, and we are delighted to note
that many graduate students took part in the
ensuing Division of Women hospitality-suite
discussion.
In
addition to organizing the event, Dr. Randour
presented her paper "Attitudes toward Women and
Animals: Linking Oppressions." She outlined a
theoretical basis for the proposition that
sexism and oppression of animals are linked and
explained how cultural phenomena that associate
women with animals and with feared aspects of
nature promote exploitation of both groups.
PSYETA
member Carol D. Raupp (see also "Speaking
Up for Animals on Campus, Part 2) presented
her paper "Treasuring or Terrorizing: Adult
Outcomes of Socialization about Companion
Animals." She described research that examined
the role of the companion animal in family
dynamics, especially "joint
discipline"--punishing a child for what the
companion animal did and vice versa.
Stephanie
LaFarge, Ph.D., our colleague at the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA), described the first psychological
intervention program for animal abusers. PSYETA
and the ASPCA are developing this joint project,
based on the Duluth model for domestic violence.
(See "PSYETA
and ASPCA Join Forces ...,")
PSYETA Program Director: Article for Psychology
Teachers
Mary Lou
Randour and PSYETA member and former board
member Paul Cunningham, Ph.D., published their
article "Alternatives to the Use of Animals in
Education" in the American Psychological
Association's September-October 1998 PTN/Psychology
Teacher Network.
Pointing
to the 1996 National Science Foundation survey
showing that support for animal
experimentation in psychology is declining,
the article refers instructors to the "many
attractive and useful" computer-based
alternatives to animals for teaching in "four
areas: learning, animal behavior, physiological
psychology, and experimental psychology."
Randour
and Cunningham describe one computer program,
Sniffy, in detail. A simulated rat "[b]orn in
1992" and distributed by Brooks/Cole Publishing,
Sniffy helps students learn about "shaping,
response acquisition, schedules of reinforcement
and other phenomena in operant conditioning" and
also complexities of the scientific process.
The
authors give five important reasons for using
Sniffy and other computer programs instead of
animals: (1) They advance the scientific
community's goal of the "3Rs"--replacement,
refinement, and reduction of animal use. (2)
They are fun and educationally efficient. (3)
They enable students to decline to participate
in classroom activities ethically unacceptable
to them. (4) Being reusable, they save money
over time. (5) Each student can learn at his or
her own pace.
"Each
successive generation of students grows more
sophisticated in computer technology," the
authors point out--so engage students by using
software, and let animals skip class!
|
PSYETA is glad to provide instructors with
additional details and ordering information
on alternatives to animals for psychology
classes. |
PSYETA Director Speaks to Vets about Animal
Experiments
Ken
Shapiro presented his paper "Animal Models and
Their Evaluation: Using Psychology as an
Example"
on July 26th at the Association of Veterinarians
for Animal Rights' (AVAR's) satellite meeting
to the American Veterinary Medical Association's
annual meeting, in Baltimore. AVAR's meeting
was called Trends and Truths about Non-Human
Animals in Research.
The
well-received presentation included some key
points from Shapiro's recent book Animal
Models of
Human Psychology: Critique of Science, Ethics
and Policy (see page 10). Shapiro
highlighted the lack of positive results from
animal experiments said to relate to human
eating disorders; they have involved many
animals over the years and have cost millions of
dollars. He also pointed out recent gains made
in opposing vivisection, such as increased
regulations and economic burdens on
experimenters and their institutions.
Several
other leading opponents of animal research also
spoke to the gathering of concerned
veterinarians.
Animal Liberation Through Language
by
Kenneth Shapiro
Language
is the basis of most human interaction, thought,
and social progress. The civil rights
movement,the women's movement, and other
contemporary struggles for liberation have
recognized that languageuse is a powerful tool
that can sustain the oppression or work toward
the liberation of a particular group. The animal
rights movement also recognizes the significance
of language. Speciesism, like racism and sexism,
is partially founded in and maintained by
linguistic use.
Usage Resolution
In 1995,
PSYETA and In Defense of Animals presented a
resolution regarding language to the Summit for
Animals, a loose confederation of national and
grassroots animal protection organizations. The
resolution as passed stated, in part:
We
resolve to use language that enhances the social
and moral status of animals from objects or
things to individuals with needs and interests
of their own.
Beyond Resolution
Much
progress has been made toward liberating
language concerning animals. A number of
academic
journals have progressive editorial policies
governing language, and animal advocates use
liberating
language in their own articles and letters and
discuss usage on the Internet.
Below, the
left-hand column provides and explains accurate,
animal-liberating language; the right-hand
column explains shortcomings of outdated
animal-oppressing usages. I seek to promote
progress, not to
declare the final word (no pun intended).
|
Accurate
Good for Animals
|
Inaccurate
Bad for Animals
|
|
"Animals" refers to all animals,
including humans |
"Animals
and humans" incorrectly implies humans
are not animals--the basis of all other
discriminatory usages. |
|
"Animals other than humans" refers to
all animals except humans; recognizes that
human beings are animals; and implies humans
are not the only animals worthy of
consideration. |
"Nonhuman animals" valorizes human
animals above all others. "Organism,"
"preparation," "meat on the hoof," "living
thing," and "resource" reduce animal being
to physiology and/or commodity status. |
|
"Animals in the laboratory"* denotes
certain groups of animal whom humans have
consgructed and acknowledges that "animal"
is a biological category, the laboratory
merely a place. |
"Laboratory animals" are a human
invention, not a biological classification. |
|
"Free-roaming animals"* or "free
animals"* distinguishes the animals
being referred to from domestication or
other captive animals without insinuating
anything about their nature. |
"Wild
animals" and "animals in the wild"
are figments of the human imagination, not a
biological classification. Negative
cannotations sometimes associated with
"wild" wrongly imply a "need" for "taming." |
|
"Animals on the farm" or "animals
used in agriculture" distinguish the
animals being referred to from others,
without implying that humans' exploitation
of the animals is part of the animals'
biological nature. |
"Farm animals" are a human invention,
not a biological classification. |
|
"Campanion
animals"* says the animals live with
human beings without belittling them. |
"Pets" is demeaning. |
|
"He," "she," "who", "whom," or the
animal's name refers to an individual
animal, not as an inanimate object. |
"It" and "which" imply that an
animal is an object, suggesting the animal
has no needs and is not worthy of
consideration. |
|
"Intended," "anticipated," and
"hesitated" correctly attribute
intention to animals. |
"It
moved" or "it lifted a limb"
reduces animal to non-thinking beings. |
|
"That particular deer" says the animal
has both individual-based and
species-specific identity. |
"Deer" implies an animal has
species-specific but not individual identity
and can only stand alone when referring to
the species as an item in a taxonomic
system. |
|
"Swam like a dolphin" shows admiration
for an animal species' known capability by
referring metaphorically to a human as an
animal other than a human. |
"Ratted on him," inaccurately
denigrating animals, lacks the accuracy that
makes for informative metaphor. |
|
"Keeper" or "caretaker"
acknowledges that animals are autonomous
beings and that humans are sometimes
responsible for some of them. |
"Owner" implies animals other than
humans are items of property and perpetuates
their unfortunate legal status. |
|
Referring to animals in laboratories as
"conscripts" acknowledges that animals
are subjected to experimentation by force. |
"Subject" or "S" ironically
describes a non-subject, an object
manipulated by an experimenter, obscuring
the reality.** |
|
"Kill" denotes ending the lives of
animals other than humans without disguising
the seriousness of the act. |
"Sacrifice," "put to sleep," or
"take" are euphemisms for "kill." They
give a false impression of high purpose of
harmlessness. |
|
"Electric shock" denotes inflicting pain
on animals other than humans an enables
humans to imagine the victim's experience. |
"Aversive stimulus" obscures the fact
that pin is inflicted and experienced. Such
technical language is acceptiable only if
"electric shock" or other straightforward
language is included. |
*For
consistency with the first entry in the
"Accurate" column, add "other than humans."
**Maybe this is why the Americal Psychological
Association now recommends "participant" over
"subject" for humans in the laboratory.
Note: PSYETA is glad to provide complete copies
of the article from which this was adapted with
permisstion (ISAZ Newsletter, 14, 20-23,
November, 1997).
Special
Resource & Gifts
Now that
those giant beach, mountain, and lakeside novels
are back on the shelf, the grueling school or
work year is in full swing, and the holiday
season is approaching, PSYETA's well-crafted,
informative, attitude-changing advocacy and gift
items are precisely what you and yours need to
continue making progress! Also perfect for
educators, social workers, law-enforcement
officials -- everyone concerned with violence in
your community.
PSYETA's
new video
Beyond Violence: The Human-Animal Connection
takes the blinders off even when you
thought they were permanent! "How we treat
animals influences--and is indicative of--the
ways in which we treat one another," begins this
clear and compelling story of humanity's
connection to other animals as we now understand
it and what it means for the future--ours and
the animals'. 12 minutes. $14.95.
Ken
Shapiro's cutting-edge book Animal Models of
Human Psychology: Critique of Science, Ethics
and Policy completely and in detail exposes
fundamental flaws rendering psychology-related
and other animal experiments useless for
advancing human health care. It clearly explains
Animal Welfare Act regulations and other
sometimes-mystifying aspects of experimentation.
A must-read for psychologists and everyone else
concerned with the important, urgent, and
controversial problem of animal laboratories.
328 pages, hardcover. Hogrefe & Huber, 1998.
Members $30.00, nonmembers $39.50.
Society & Animals: Social Scientific Studies of
the Human Experience of Other Animals, a
quarterly journal edited by Ken Shapiro,
provides articles, commentaries and book
reviews. Topics: research, education, medicine,
and agriculture using animals; entertainment,
companion animals, animal symbolism, and other
popular-culture uses of animals; wildlife and
the environment; and sociopolitical movements,
public policy, and the law. Members $30.00
for three issues, nonmembers $40.00.
The
Jouurnal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (JAAWS),
coedited by Ken Shapiro, makes available book
reviews and articles on effects of captivity on
naturally free-roaming animals; ways of
minimizing pain and stress in animals in
laboratories; methods for improving lives of
animals raised for food; and other critical
information researched by scholars in a broad
range of disciplines. Members $17.50 for four
issues, nonmembers $35.00.
To order these or other PSYETA publications,
visit the order page.
Proposed APA Division Human-Animal Relations
The
proposed APA Division on Human-Animal
Relations is concerned with the human
experience of nonhuman animals and the mutual
interaction and influence between human and
nonhuman animals.
The
Division on Human-Animal Relations
encompasses a broad range of phenomena that have
immediate and enduring relevance for
psychologists. The Division on Human-Animal
Relations would examine the relationship
between animal abuse and human violence,
particularly domestic violence and child abuse,
and the role of animals in human psychology and
socialization, such as the role of companion
animals in family life, in aging, and in the
development of empathy and moral development.
Other areas of interest for the Division on
Human-Animal Relations include studying the
many ways in which animals play a vital role in
human health, including benefits from
pet-assisted therapies, promoting recovery from
illness, and the development of self-esteem.
Still other areas include: human attitudes
toward the use and treatment of animals;
personality differences in attitudes toward
animals; animals in science, culture and
politics, e.g., attitudes toward, and the
effectiveness of, the use of animals in
research, animals in religion and spirituality,
and the symbolic role of animals.
|
