|
By
a Member: Speaking Up for Animals on Campus
by Carol D. Raupp, Ph.D., California State
University, Bakersfield
When I began teaching child psychology at Cal State, Bakersfield, in 1985, the
Psychology Department taught a laboratory course in operant conditioning using rats, who
could either be taken home at the end of the course as pets of the students who had
trained them, or killed and fed to birds of prey in the campus raptor rehab facility. The
lab closed within a few years because the rats' housing no longer met codes. In that time,
I had given only passing thought to the rats' fate, just a mild squirm of discomfort. I
was not yet a vegetarian, much less the vegan that I am now. I was an environmentalist but
not yet an ecofeminist. I was an animal sympathizer but not yet an animal rescuer and
advocate. During the same years in which I became all these things, my department pursued
and finally obtained a new animal research facility.
Across these years, my ethical position became clearer and clearer to me: I find no
compelling divide--biological, social, or psychological--between humans and other beings.
I can find no justification for using other animals to meet human wants and desires. I
strive to avoid harming them. There is an indivisibility that must be respected--I
experience "us" rather than "me-them."
This is the story of my attempts to speak up for animals. I learned this is not easy,
professionally or personally. But someone must try to give them a voice.
Phase One: The Re-introduction of Animal Research
In the 1992-93 academic year we hired
an alum of our undergraduate program who'd
received graduate training in animal vision
research. During his interview, the two of
us talked about my concerns about using animals
in research. He was currently doing noninvasive
research and would be commuting to sites elsewhere
to conduct it. He let me know that he could
not rule out doing future invasive research
or attempting to get an animal lab here.
Within a year he had garnered initial
administrative support for installation of an animal facility, estimated to cost more than
$50,000. To my dismay, the proposal was brought forward and approved by my department
within one meeting. I cast the sole dissenting vote.
When I asked the department Chair
if we could reconsider that hasty decision at another meeting, he replied, "When are
you going to realize that no one else in the world thinks the way you do about this?"
From that day on I have been seen as the recalcitrant troublemaker or soft-hearted fool by
many on this campus. My awareness of these perceptions causes worries about professional
and personal acceptance, about harm to my career, and about relationships with colleagues.
The lab proposal was wending its way through the bureaucracy, when we had our second
department meeting. This time, one colleague expressed opposition to procedures that end
in death and another objected to invasive procedures but not to death if it is painless.
The department then reaffirmed its initial vote.
There never seemed to be a definitive time or place to fight this proposal--it was like
punching jello. I developed new courses I hoped could offer our students an alternative
view, including "People and Other Animals." Students dismayed about our lab
course dissections or the impending facility come to me for solace and advice. I have
proposed a conscientious objector policy for our students, but it has not been acted upon.
Phase Two: The New Battleground: Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee,
1997-98
With only a few days'
notice that the Academic Senate was about to take up the proposed policy for an
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), I scrambled to get a copy. As is
typical, this document built in an assumption that educational and research projects would
be approved. For example, it stated that disapproving a project would be a
"rare" event.
I attended the senate meeting, distributing a list of my concerns. I noted that the
proposed policy, as stated, would permit anything to be done to animals as long as there
was a "scientific purpose." I asked them to change the wording to indicate that
pain, stress, and discomfort must be avoided. I pointed out that committee procedures
would involve no formal assessment of the extent of harm. With a number of validated
scales to assess animal pain and suffering available, such estimates should be required.
My presentation seemed to encourage some senators to express their questions. One
suggested tabling the proposal until there had been a chance to review my points. Another
asked that the word "rare" be removed in reference to project disapprovals.
Administrators repeated that the proposal used "government language" and went
beyond government requirements for protecting animals. Despite their warnings about delay,
the proposal was tabled until the next meeting with the condition that written suggestions
for exact changes were to be submitted within a week.
More animal research proponents attended the second meeting. I had submitted a lengthy
array of suggestions for specific changes in language, with brief rationales. A senator
commented that he did not have enough information and background to judge the suggestions,
so he proposed the policy either be sent back to committee or passed as is.
Discussion ensued. Along the way, a visitor made a rather startling comment. He used
the analogy that being on the IACUC is like serving on a jury. Both have a charge and
established guidelines for decisions. Jurors are screened to make sure they can comply
with these, such as being willing to impose the death penalty in capital trials. IACUC
members also should be prepared to sanction pain and distress in animals when this is, on
balance, of scientific benefit.
I expressed consternation at the death penalty/jury analogy. One senator voiced a
preference for a jury that's biased against suffering. I urged the senate to adopt a
policy with compassion as its basis, even if that meant breaking new ground instead of
following traditional procedures.
As discussion continued, proponents of the animal research facility offered a variety
of justifications -- careers on the line, promises to young faculty, the need to trust
colleagues, and the possibility of changing the policy later if needed. They also claimed
that ethical concerns were more than adequately addressed. On the one hand, they argued
that animals may have to suffer for human benefit (a benefit that they never
substantiated). On the other hand, they claimed that researchers did not intend to harm
animals.
The eventual vote on the "Policy and Procedures for the Protection of Animals in
Research and Education" was 6 in favor, two opposed, and 7 abstentions. The policy
passed with only 6 out of 15 Senators voting for it.
This vote captured the dilemma for someone like me who is committed to speaking up for
animals. Those endorsing animal research have diverse motivations--economic benefit,
professional advancement, and, of course, their belief that they are contributing to their
science. They are experienced in representing what is "normative" as the only
way things can be. There were senators who had misgivings about the animal facility, but
to vote against it would seem like a vote against their colleagues' and students'
opportunities. And like most of us, these sympathizers were not expert enough about the
empirical and ethical bases of this controversy to be effective in the limited forum that
was offered. Animal advocates are swimming against the current. Our claims about the
ethical wrongness of this
research and the reasons why we think the benefits claimed for humans are grossly
exaggerated tend to be swiftly swept away. But if we don't educate ourselves and keep
speaking up, the acceptance of animal research as "the way things are" becomes
entrenched.
After
the heated discussion and disappointing vote,
I still believed I could be appointed to the
IACUC since I had so clearly displayed interest
and expertise. But I was naive.
EDITOR S NOTE:For
this issue we replaced our "By the
Board" column with a "By a Member"
column, when we invited Carol Raupp to write
about her experiences in speaking out for
animals on her campus. We want to acknowledge
the work she is doing because we think she
deserves our gratitude and support. We hope
writing this article and hearing from you
may provide her that in some measure. Although
she herself does not see her actions as
heroic -- she calls them "morally compelling"
rather than brave -- we do. It is never
easy to raise difficult questions and to
challenge the "normative." But
she has. When any one of us works for the
animals they are not only doing it for them;
they are acting for all of us who care about
animals.
Mark
Your Calendar
Saturday,
August 15 - Organization Meeting of the Proposed
Division on Human-Animal Relations
For any of you attending the American Psychological
Association meeting in San Francisco, please
come to the organizational meeting of the
proposed division on Human-Animal Relations.
It wil be held on Saturday, August 15, from
ll:00 a.m. to 12:50 p.m. in Room 250 of the
Moscone Center-South Building. It will be
an opportunity to meet others interested in
this division and to give us your ideas about
the division. We hope to see you there.
Saturday,
August 15 - Division 35 Symposium, "Shared
Status of Women and Animals: Theory,
Research and Treatment"
Before
you attend the Human-Animal Relations division
meeting, please join us at a symposium on
"Shared Status of Women and Animals:
Theory, Research and Treatment" from
9:00 a.m. to 9:50 a.m. in the Ralston Room
of The Palace , continuing from 10:00 a.m.
to 10:50 a.m. at APA/Division 35 Hospitality
Suite, Royal Suite, Palace Hotel. Mary Lou
Randour, chair of the symposium, will present
a paper on "Attitudes Toward Women and
Animals: Linking Oppressions." PSYETA
member Stephanie LaFarge, PhD, will discuss
"The Link Between Animal Abuse and Family
Violence: Treatment Possibilities" and
PSYETA member Carol Raupp, PhD, will
present her paper, "Treasuring or Terrorizing:
Adult Outcomes of Socialization About Companion
Animals." Carol Rayburn, PhD, a Board
member of PSYETA, will be the discussant.
What You Can
Do to Help
It Can
Happen With Your Help: Make a Division of
Human-Animal Relations in the American
Psychological Association a Reality
Thank you for signing the
petition to establish a new division of APA on
"Human-Animal Relations." Please help us
again. Make copies of the petition (see
insert page) and have at least three other
people sign it. Remember: only full members’
signatures count. Regrettably, students,
associates, and affiliates cannot vote for a new
division.
And, if you have not signed the
petition, please do so now.
This proposed Division
is an exciting opportunity for all of those
who care about and are interested in animals.
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.
The undersigned
respectfully requests the establishment of an
APA Division on Human-Animal Relations
and agrees to become a member of such a division
upon establishment and have a continuing
interest in the division.
Signature
______________________________________________________
Name (please
print clearly)
________________________________________
Address
_______________________________________________________
City State Zip
Code
______________________________________________
Telephone
Number _____________________
Fax Number
__________________________
E-mail
_______________________________
APA Member
Number: _____________________
APA Membership
Status: (check one):
Fellow ___
Member ___ Associate ___ Student ___
Foreign Affiliate ___
Return
to: Mary Lou Randour, PhD, 4330 Leland St,
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Surveying
the APA's Animal Use Survey
Introduction
On
three occasions, the American Psychological
Association has administered surveys to the
faculties of psychology departments in the
US regarding their use of nonhuman animals
in research and teaching. Regarding the first
two surveys, conducted in 1983 and 1985/6,
the APA's Committee on Animal Research and
Ethics (CARE) concluded that "although
the data were useful, the data were not of
sufficient quality to merit publication"
(Dewsbury, 1993).
In
our view, although informative in some of
its findings, there are also serious problems
with their most recent survey, conducted in
1996.
The
Immaculate Intervention: Lots of Pain but
no Distress
The survey reports
findings regarding the amount of pain experienced
by animals used in research and teaching in
sychology departments.
The relevant survey item is a three point
scale -- modeled after that found in the United
States Department of Agriculture regulations --
ranging from slight to moderate to severe pain.
This scale has been
criticized by individuals with very varying
views on the animal research issue. Despite
these different views, a group of forty representatives
of animal research and animal protection organizations
unanimously agreed at a 1995 meeting that
the USDA classification scheme is unsatisfactory.
There are several more sophisticated classification
schemes in the literature. PSYETA has
developed a "Scale of Invasiveness"
which is geared specifically to psychological
research (Field & Shapiro, 1988). A modified
scheme is currently being pilot-tested in
a number of research facilities.
The USDA regulations link the terms "pain and
distress" throughout. Inscrutably, however, this
item in the APA omits the term "distress" in
each scale point. It asks psychology faculty to
estimate pain only. This is an ironic, and
unforgivable, omission for a professional
organization of psychologists to make since
distress is a psychological phenomenon.
Despite using a flawed
scale, the findings are significant. Respondents
report that slightly more than half of the
animals used experience moderate/brief pain,
while 3.8% experience "sustained or severe,
unalleviated pain." So, significantly
more than half (55.7%) of the animals used
in psychology departments experience moderate
or sustained pain. If distress also were assessed,
we can safely assume that this number would
be greater.
Juxtaposed to the findings of the animal use
surveys, are Plous’s (1996) findings. Even when
the research is described as "institutionally
approved and deemed of scientific merit," 62.1%
and 44.4% of psychologists surveyed indicated
that research involving pain or death to
primates and rats, respectively, is unjustified.
How
do we square the reality of animal suffering
in psychology departments with the vast majority
of psychologists’ disapproval of such pain?
There is no one answer, but certainly it points
to the success of APA public relations effort
which claims (unjustifiably), that, "Relatively
few behavioral studies involve pain, stress,
or privation to the animals" (Behavioral
Research with Animals, undated). APA also
has resisted efforts of those opposed to research
using animals to make their views known to
its members. Most psychologists also do not
realize that not only do animals suffer in
research, but that almost all are killed after
they are used.The
Numbers Game
For a number of reasons it is difficult to
estimate the number of animals that
psychologists use annually, notably because the
Animal Welfare Act, in its legislative wisdom,
does not count rodents or birds as animals. In a
recent publication (Shapiro, 1998), we arrived
at the estimate, necessarily by a circuitous
route, of 1.6 million nonhuman animals used by
psychologists in the United States annually.
The APA survey could
have provided a more reliable count with this
direct survey measure.
Unfortunately, there are major problems with
the number reported of 151,748 (which does not
include birds or rodents). First, it is not
clear what percent of the total number of
psychology departments in the United States are
represented in the sample. Presumably, this
could be determined but it is not indicated in
the survey.
More
insidiously, the survey item merely asks for
"the number of animals used." No
time frame is indicated. Not surprisingly,
as the survey reports in a note, "There
were differing interpretations of what we
were asking here. Some provided a 'current
snapshot', others provided an annual total
for both semesters." By contrast, virtually
all other reports on numbers of animals used
in research, including those of the USDA,
are annualized, something the APA survey failed
to do. This means that the APA survey numbers
are necessarily an underestimate, but one
of an indeterminate amount.
What
to Do
Those
of us with questions about using animals in
research have deep concern about the extent
to which they are subjected to pain and suffering.
This pain and suffering is now documented
by the APA. We are heartened by the fact that
the majority of psychologists would not support
research that inflicts pain and suffering
and that results in death. Our feelings of
encouragement, however, are mixed with puzzlement
about how to more effectively reach psychologists
to inform them of the reality of animal research.
Animals suffer, they experience pain and distress,
and they die -- in great numbers. We would
love to hear from you with your ideas about
what we can do together to bring this information
to more psychologists. The animals cannot
speak for themselves. It is up to us.
Our
Mistake
In an article in the Spring, 1998 issue of
PSYETA News, "PSYETA: Radicals
or Realists?" we mistakenly referred to "The
Diagnostic Style Manual." The correct title of
this reference is "Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders."
In
addition, in "More About The Great
Apes," we referred to Charles Coulston,
Head of the Coulston Foundation, who twice
was found to be in violation of the Animal
Welfare Act. His name is Frederick Coulston.
PSYETA
ANIMALS AND THEIR COMPANION STAFF MEMBERS
There
are many benefits to working for an animal
advocacy group. You can talk about your companion
animals as much as you want without shame.
You can also bring them to work -- although
we must admit it can get a little noisy sometimes.
And you can feature them in your newsletter.
Here are the animals who are companions to
the PSYETA staff. Let us see photographs
of the animals who are your companions and
they, too, can appear in our newsletter. As
far as bringing them to work, you probably
should check with your employer.
|
