|
PSYETA
Head in Lab Animal Magazine:
Experiment Evaluation Method Should
Spare Animals
PSYETA Executive Director Ken Shapiro, Ph.D., published in the November
1998 issue of Lab Animal magazine an article summarizing key points of
a new evaluation method he and PSYETA recommend for animal models of human
disorders. Shapiro's article, "Assessing Animal Models of Human Disorders:
Validity vs. 'Productive Generativity,'" was the first part of "Looking
at Animal Models: Both Sides of the Debate." The section also included
"A Conversation with Ken Shapiro," which enabled Shapiro to explain further
where his opponent's argument fell short.
Validation Not a Justification
Shapiro's article explained that "validating" animal models as
experimenters sometimes do- - showing similarities between animals they
use and human beings- - does not demonstrate an experiment is of sufficient
value to justify conducting or funding it. A scientific model is by definition
analogous to the "original"- - sometimes the two have much in common, sometimes
little. A valid model of a human disorder, highly similar to that which
it models, may produce nothing of use for treating the disorder, while
using a model dissimilar in major respects to that which it models may
lead to breakthroughs. That is, validation fails to predict the value of
an experiment.
Productive Generativity a Superior
Standard
A more useful standard than validation would ensure that fewer
animals were used and that funding for psychological and biomedical research
were more stringently applied. That is what Shapiro proposes: evaluation
of a model's "productive generativity."
Researchers
should evaluate- - and Institutional Animal Care
& Use Committees (IACUCs) should require them to
evaluate- - past uses of a model: benefits to
humans, citation frequency, clinicians' reliance
on articles explaining the model, costs to
animals experimented on, and other relevant
factors.
To
illustrate how such evaluations of animal models
would work, Shapiro summarized his own in- depth
study of animal models of human eating
disorders. His detailed study showed no human
benefit from use of those models, rare mention
in later publications, and severe pain,
distress, and harm to animals. The eating-
disorders animal experiments were not based on
close observation of eating disorders in humans;
they borrowed from existing experimental
procedures.
In
addition, the symptoms inflicted on animals
differed from those of human eating disorders so
as to make the studies inapplicable to human
treatment, and in seeking pharmacological
treatment, those studies ignored the strong
evidence that a "slimming culture" is a key
contributing factor in the human disorders.
Shapiro concluded,
I propose
a reevaluation of research strategy. While
models are only analogous to the subject under
study, they ideally provide simplicity,
accessibility, control, and ethical
acceptability (avoiding the use of human
subjects). The results of the present study
suggest that these goals are not generally
obtained. Some of us also believe that the
ethical gain is in doubt, given philosophies
that argue the moral consideration that non-
human animals deserve.
Limited
payoff from some animal model research such as
that presented above, combined with ethical
concerns and the development of technologies
that permit the noninvasive direct observation
of disorders in living patients (e.g., positron
emission tomography), may suggest alternative
strategies to the development of animal models.
Vivisection
Defended
The part
of the debate defending vivisection was
"Teaching the Public about Animal Models in
Biomedical Research," by Mary Ellenberger, D.V.M.,
M.S., director of the Division of Laboratory
Medicine at the Tufts- New England Medical
Center. Her central point was that, if the
public and health- care professionals were
better informed about vivisection, the practice
would be more widely accepted.
Ellenberger named a few instances in which
human health- care breakthroughs were preceded
by animal experiments, but her examples did not
prove that the breakthroughs would not have
occurred without the animal experiments. Her
examples also failed to demonstrate that the
animal models were adequately evaluated or that
obtaining results in humans similar to those in
the animals was anything more than a fortunate
coincidence.
Defense Is Flawed
Health
practitioners' ignorance of animal
experimentation, which Ellenberger laments, may
not be arbitrary and may not serve to obscure
benefits Ellenberger claims derive from the
experiments; these professionals may be choosing
to spend their valuable time familiarizing
themselves with the research that counts most
for their work: that involving human beings. As
Shapiro's study of eating- disorder research
suggests, clinicians do not study animal
experiments because it is unlikely they have
found them to be relevant or helpful.
Large Industry Audience
Lab
Animal has about 10,000 subscribers, mostly in
animal experimentation, IACUCs, and industries
vivisection supports- - animal breeding, cage
and restraint manufacturing, and others. Animal
rights advocates learn rationalizations for
animal abuse and exploitation from the first
moment they understand words, but those who
gain from animal- based industries must either
go out of their way to encounter animal rights
arguments or come upon them by accident. They
may find it easy to dismiss our views.
Appearing
as it does in "their" publication, Shapiro's Lab
Animal article offers them a special opportunity
to reevaluate their practices on a scientific
basis. It will also reach thousands of students,
enabling them to see through the typical
defenses of animal experimentation and to
consider their career plans carefully.
Book Even Better
Thorough
explanations of the productive generativity
evaluation method for research models, the
eating- disorders example, how vivisection
became such a large industry despite poor
results, the lack of adequate laws and
regulations affecting animal laboratories and
weak enforcement, and other key aspects of
animal experimentation are provided in Shapiro's
book Animal Models of Human Psychology: Critique
of Science, Ethics, and Policy (Hogrefe and
Huber, 1998)- - see
Special Resources and Gifts.
PSYETA Head in
Lab Animal Magazine:
Experiment
Evaluation Method Should Spare Animals
PSYETA
Executive Director Ken Shapiro, Ph.D., published
in the November 1998 issue of Lab Animal
magazine an article summarizing key points of a
new evaluation method he and PSYETA recommend
for animal models of human disorders. Shapiro's
article, "Assessing Animal Models of Human
Disorders: Validity vs. 'Productive Generativity,'"
was the first part of "Looking at Animal Models:
Both Sides of the Debate." The section also
included "A Conversation with Ken Shapiro,"
which enabled Shapiro to explain further where
his opponent's argument fell short.
Validation Not a
Justification
Shapiro's
article explained that "validating" animal
models as experimenters sometimes do- - showing
similarities between animals they use and human
beings- - does not demonstrate an experiment is
of sufficient value to justify conducting or
funding it. A scientific model is by definition
analogous to the "original"- - sometimes the two
have much in common, sometimes little. A valid
model of a human disorder, highly similar to
that which it models, may produce nothing of use
for treating the disorder, while using a model
dissimilar in major respects to that which it
models may lead to breakthroughs. That is,
validation fails to predict the value of an
experiment.
Productive
Generativity a Superior Standard
A more
useful standard than validation would ensure
that fewer animals were used and that funding
for psychological and biomedical research were
more stringently applied. That is what Shapiro
proposes: evaluation of a model's "productive
generativity."
Spring 1999 Volume 19
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.
Jeanie Freeman, Webmaster
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.
Federal
Acceptance of Non-Animal Tests Is Focus of Bill
By Sara Amundson
In a coalition termed
"strange bedfellows" by Lab Animal magazine,
animal advocates and the regulated industry are
supporting establishment of a government
committee to evaluate alternatives to toxicity
tests using animals. Soon to be introduced in
the 106th Congress, the ICCVAM Authorization Act
would establish the Inter- Agency Coordinating
Committee for the Validation of Alternative
Methods (ICCVAM) as a permanent standing
committee.
Stagnation a
Serious Problem
Federal agencies'
reluctance to accept alternatives to animal
tests has frustrated animal advocates and caused
manufacturers of promising methods to bankrupt
their businesses. Some scientists also believe
this failure on the part of the government has
prevented the science of toxicology from
progressing beyond decades- old technology.
"Think about it: We are
about to begin the 21st century using many
toxicology methods that were originally
developed in the 1940s," says Kathy Stitzel,
D.V.M., associate director of Corporate
Professional Regulatory Services at The Procter
& Gamble Company. "I can think of few other
fields where acceptance of scientific progress
has been so effectively blocked."
Committee To
Date: Small Step Forward
In the National Institutes
of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Congress
directed the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) to "develop and validate
assays and protocols, including alternative
methods that can reduce or eliminate the use of
animals in acute or chronic safety testing," to
"establish criteria for the validation and
regulatory acceptance of alternative testing,"
and to "recommend a process through which
scientifically validated alternative methods can
be accepted for regulatory use."
This mandate resulted in
the establishment of ICCVAM. ICCVAM reviews non-
animal methods for assessing risk and makes
recommendations to federal agencies regarding
those testing methods. It can update methods by
recommending those that are more humane than
animal tests and are equally or more predictive
of toxicity in humans.
Officials of 14 federal
regulatory and research agencies and programs
comprise ICCVAM. Along with stakeholders,
including animal advocacy organizations, in 1997
they produced the booklet Validation and
Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test
Methods: A Report of the Ad Hoc ICCVAM.
Big Step Needed
However, a wealth of basic
information on federal agencies' toxicology
policies is still not available in a single
document. The bill would require federal
agencies to forward to ICCVAM all regulations,
requirements and recommendations that encourage
or require animal testing. ICCVAM would keep the
information in a central repository. This is
crucial for animal protectionists seeking exact
federal regulations or requirements for animal
testing and for companies researching and
developing new methods that do not use animals.
"Strange
Bedfellows" Agree
The broad coalition
backing the Act includes the American Humane
Association, Colgate- Palmolive Company, Doris
Day Animal League, The Gillette Company, The
Humane Society of the United States,
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, and The Procter & Gamble
Company. All desire quicker acceptance of
alternatives to animal tests.
"While the Doris Day
Animal League certainly does not support the
continuing use of animals in product testing,
time and again industry has related to us its
frustration in gaining acceptance of alternative
methods by the federal government," says Holly
Hazard, executive director of the Doris Day
Animal League. "This bill will facilitate
acceptance, saving untold animal lives."
What You
Can Do
Please ask your
representative and senators to support and co-
sponsor the ICCVAM Authorization Act. For more
information, contact Sara Amundson at the Doris
Day Animal League: 202- 546- 1761.
Sara Amundson is
deputy director and legislative director of the
Doris Day Animal League, where she has been
employed for 10 years. She lobbied the
Department of Transportation to accept the first
alternative method for its hazardous transport
packaging regulations. She chairs the Coalition
for Consumer Information on Cosmetics and serves
on the international committee of 50 animal
organizations working to end the use of animals
in cosmetics and household product testing.
Making Strides
Grateful for
Grant
PSYETA
is pleased and grateful to announce that it has
received a $5,000.00 grant from the Doris Day
Animal League (DDAL) to assist in development of
the animal abuser treatment program described in
previous issues of PSYETA News. DDAL informed
PSYETA of its decision in December 1998.
The grant will
enable PSYETA to develop a training manual for
counselors working with animal abusers.
Recognition by mental health professionals that
animal abuse is violent and dangerous behavior
and a sign of serious emotional problems
requiring treatment is one of PSYETA's highest
priorities.
That is why
PSYETA is establishing, along with the American
Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
New York City's first program to train mental
health professionals in the treatment of animal
abusers; worked to ensure passage of
California's new law mandating psychological
counseling for anyone convicted of animal abuse;
and created
Beyond Violence: The Human- Animal Connection,
PSYETA's new video explaining the importance of
human treatment of animals for animals'
well-being and that of humanity.
Says PSYETA
Executive Director Ken Shapiro, "This support
from DDAL means a great deal to PSYETA and its
members. Through it we will be able to develop a
training manual. It will help us spread the word
far more quickly than we otherwise would have
been able to. We are deeply thankful to DDAL."
Human- Animal
Connection Recognized in China
The People's
Republic of China, a nation with a dismal human
rights record, has begun to recognize animals'
civilizing effects.
The South
China Morning Post reported, on September 14,
1998, that the Dr. Dog patient therapy program,
operating in Hong Kong since 1991, had been
launched on China's mainland.
Four dogs
certified for patient therapy sessions visited
with 20 handicapped children on September 13th,
according to the report. The plan is for animals
and children to meet once a month at the Panyu
Bear Sanctuary, about 12 miles south of
Guangzhou.
While there
is always a danger that such programs might
possibly become neglectful of some of the
animals' needs, their effectiveness reflects the
special bond between humans and other animals
and the betrayal of the human- animal
relationship inherent in using animals for
experimentation, classroom dissection, hunting,
fishing, bullfights and other bloodsports, and
the many other abuses to which people subject
animals.
PSYETA
considers rectifying such injustices a top
priority of a healthy society. Urging this task
upon parents, educators, social workers, and
others involved in shaping the character of the
next generation is a key aim of the new PSYETA
video, Beyond Violence: The Human- Animal
Connection, mentioned above (also see page 11).
Student C.O.
Established in Australian U.
PSYETA has
for years provided information to students and
educators about non- animal teaching methods
available to replace classroom uses of animals-
- experiments using live animals and dissection
of dead ones. Scientific studies of several
fields of science and health care show that
students taught with "alternative" methods are
at least as competent as those taught with
animals.
As explained
in- - you guessed it: Beyond Violence: The
Human- Animal Connection! (see page 11)- -
teaching young people that animals are learning
tools violates the human- animal relationship
that in a healthy society would be mutually
beneficial, not exploitative.
Several
states now require that teachers provide
alternatives for students who object on ethical
grounds to dissection or other uses of animals.
Many professional schools have conscientious
objection policies. Yet concerted efforts are
often necessary to obtain alternatives where
requirements do not yet exist. Students face
lowering of grades, intimidation by instructors,
administrators who defer to instructors'
"academic freedom," and other obstacles, so they
often contact PSYETA and other organizations for
assistance.
We were
delighted to hear from Australia veterinary
student Andrew Knight. "On November 11, 1998,
Perth's Murdoch University took the
groundbreaking step of formally allowing
conscientious objection by students to animal
experimentation or other areas of their
coursework," begins a report Knight e- mailed to
us recently. "Murdoch is, to my knowledge, the
first Australian university to formally take
this step ...."
Knight found
himself "brought up hard against reality" in his
first year of veterinary training, when students
were required to dissect many animals and he
"tried not to think too much about where all
these bodies had come from."
Requesting
alternatives and initially being refused, Knight
persisted. He spoke repeatedly with instructors,
obtained literature from animal organizations,
and read Vivisection and Dissection in the
Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection,
by Gary Francione and Anna Charlton of the
Rutgers University Animal Rights Law Clinic. A
fellow student joined him in his fight. He had
to take legal action before his veterinary
school would relent and let those who would
provide health care to animals learn their
profession in the most humane possible way.
Knight prevailed, on the grounds that he had
been discriminated against based on his
religious beliefs. The school's new policy and
the determined effort to establish it received
widespread news coverage in Australia. Knight
and many letter writers congratulated the
University.
Historic Ruling: Court
Grants Standing
in Primate Well-Being
Case
By Valerie
Stanley
On
September 1, 1998, the eleven-member U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued a ground-breaking decision in the case
brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF)
and several individuals.
The case
challenges the primate psychological well-being
regulation issued in 1991 under the Animal
Welfare Act (AWA) by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Court held
that an individual who viewed primates in a zoo
in conditions that did not promote the primates'
psychological well-being had "standing"--i.e.,
could challenge in court USDA's regulation
governing the primate's housing.
This case
marks the first time a court has granted
standing under the AWA.
The Case
A plaintiff
saw primates exhibited in barren cages, isolated
from other primates. Seven judges held that the
plaintiff had standing to bring the case against
USDA. Four judges disagreed. The lawsuit alleges
that the regulation authorizes research
facilities, zoos and dealers to keep primates in
conditions that are psychologically harmful to
those animals and that this violates the 1985
Amendments to the AWA.
The Amendments
mandated that USDA set standards for "a physical
environment adequate to promote the
psychological well-being of primates."
USDA's current
regulation provides that regulated entities
should "address" and "consider" on paper certain
aspects of primates' environment. Thus, zoos and
others essentially make their own rules rather
than adhere to a government-mandated standard.
On October 30,
1996, the late U.S. District Judge Charles
Richey ruled that plaintiffs had standing and
the regulation was illegal. The National
Association for Biomedical Research (NABR)
intervened and appealed, along with USDA,
arguing that plaintiffs did not have standing
and that the regulation was legal. A three-judge
panel of the Court of Appeals initially held
that plaintiffs did not have standing, but the
September 1, 1998, decision reversed that
ruling.
The Court of
Appeals has yet to rule on whether the
regulation is legal.
Standing Is
Crucial
To bring a
case in federal court, one must have the
requisite "standing." Standing is the
plaintiff's ability to present a "case or
controversy." Pursuant to Article III of the
U.S. Constitution, federal courts may only hear
cases in which a "case or controversy" is found
to exist.
The "case or
controversy" requirement encompasses three
elements. First, the plaintiff must suffer an
"injury in fact." This means that his or her
injury must be concrete, not abstract or
hypothetical. Second, this injury must be caused
by the defendants' actions. Third, the injury
must be one that can be redressed, or remedied,
by the action the plaintiff asks the Court to
take. Finally, the interest the plaintiff seeks
to protect must be within the "zone of
interests" that the statute under which the case
is brought seeks to protect.
Zoogoer
Meets Standing Requirement
The Court of
Appeals majority opinion found all four elements
satisfied in ALDF's primate psychological
well-being case. The Court explained that prior
Supreme Court cases have held that people's
aesthetic interests in viewing animals are
entitled to protection--in other words, a
violation of that interest suffices for injury
in fact. The Court recognized that the plaintiff
had an aesthetic interest in seeing exotic
animals in a nurturing habitat and that this
interest was injured when the plaintiff saw the
animals in their actual living conditions.
The Court
stated that its ruling on plaintiff's injury
proceeded logically from earlier cases holding
that persons could sue when government actions
threaten to wipe out an animal species
altogether. The Court held in this case that
people could also challenge government action
that "leaves some animals in a persistent state
of suffering."
On the second
and third elements, the Court held that the
regulation caused the plaintiff's injury because
USDA inspectors had found the zoo plaintiff
visited to be in compliance with the regulation
on every inspection and that regulations
including more stringent standards would
alleviate his aesthetic injury in seeing
primates in inhumane conditions. Finally, the
Court found that the interest in seeing animals
humanely treated clearly was contemplated by the
AWA.
NABR
Seeks Supreme Court Review
The
government has not asked the Supreme Court to
review the case, but NABR has. NABR argues that
the plaintiff's injuries are subjective, not
verifiable, and, unless the Supreme Court
reverses the appeals court, the floodgates of
litigation will be open to persons attempting to
impose their own value preferences on entities
subject to the AWA.
The Supreme
Court is expected to decide this spring whether
or not to review the case. Until that time,
there will be no ruling on whether the
regulation on primate psychological well-being
is legal.
Want To
Know More?
For more
information, contact the Animal Legal Defense
Fund at
aldf@wt.infi.net.
Coalition Opposes Primate Experimentation
About 50,000 other- than-
human primates- - chimpanzees, rhesus macaques,
common marmosets, cotton- topped tamarins, and
many others- - are used in U.S. laboratories
every year. Many experiments involving monkeys
and apes are conducted by psychologists. In
recent decades, incremental progress has been
made toward ending laboratory confinement of and
experimentation on our closest animal relatives
and toward improving conditions for them to the
extent that they are kept in laboratories.
The Coalition to End
Primate Experimentation (CEPE) is organizing the
1999 Primate Freedom Tour to take place June 1
through September 4, 1999. A caravan of
concerned people from all over the U.S. with a
specially purchased Freedom Tour bus, the Tour
will stop and hold teach- ins, protests, and
other activities at each of the seven National
Institutes of Health- funded and operated
Regional Primate Research Centers (RPRCs).
The RPRCs are located in
Seattle, Washington; Beaverton, Oregon; Davis,
California; Covington, Louisiana; Atlanta,
Georgia; Southborough, Massachusetts; and
Madison, Wisconsin, home of psychologist Harry
Harlow's notorious maternal- deprivation
experiments on infant chimpanzees and some
offshoots that unfortunately continue to this
day. Each RPRC is affiliated with a large
university, and each holds thousands of
primates.
En route between RPRCs,
the tour will make special stops at other
facilities with primate laboratories, where
educational and protest activities will also
take place. CEPE, a loosely organized group of
animal advocates and activists with a common
desire for an end to experimentation on other-
than- human primates (PSYETA among them), plans
to ensure that the 1999 Primate Freedom Tour
informs as many people as possible of the
injustice and unacceptability of primate
experimentation.
CEPE has created a unique
and original item to raise funds for the Tour:
Freedom Tags. Resembling military "dog tags" and
made to be worn around the neck (also available
in keychain form), each Freedom Tag provides the
serial number, gender, species, date of birth,
and RPRC of one primate. Each comes with a
beautifully printed insert giving information on
CEPE and the tags and addresses of the RPRCs in
case Freedom Tag wearers would like to inquire
as to the well- being of "their" primates.
Freedom Tags sell for $10.
For a 1999 Primate Freedom Tour brochure
(includes schedule), contact PSYETA. For a
brochure and a Freedom Tag, to support the Tour
financially, and/or for additional information:
CEPE
P.O. Box 34293
Washington, DC 20043;
Toll- free (888) 391-
8948;
cepemail@yahoo.com; and
http://www.enviroweb.org/cepe.
Update:
Professor Continues Pursuing IACUC
By Carol D. Raupp, Ph.D.
In the
Fall 1998 issue of PSYETA News, Dr. Raupp
recounted how she had sought to serve on the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IAUCUC)
of California State University at Bakersfield,
where she is a member of the Psychology
Department. Despite her expertise in human-
animal studies and other ethical issues related
to IACUC activities, she was repeatedly rebuffed
while less qualified faculty members were
appointed- - plainly due to her known opposition
to animal experimentation. Following is the
latest from Dr. Raupp on her efforts to ensure
the best possible treatment of animals at her
university.
Knowing
that there would be at least one opening on the
IACUC in January, I again submitted a memo and
attachments highlighting my expertise. These
were returned to me with a statement that there
were no openings. After I requested
clarification, it was established that there was
indeed an opening. I resubmitted my materials.
They were again returned to me, this time with a
note thanking me for my interest.
I was
never formally notified of a decision regarding
the IACUC opening, but I learned that an
anthropology professor was appointed--another
novice with regard to the issues and practices
involved in the use of other-than-human animals
in research. Despite receiving no agenda or
other IACUC documents, I am attending meetings
as a visitor.
At the
February 5, 1999, IACUC meeting, the committee
reviewed drafts of documents associated with
standard operating procedures, such as protocol
submission forms, that should have been in place
before the animal research facility opened. The
committee then made its semi-annual inspection
tour of the laboratory.
About 20
rats had been kept in the laboratory, in
shoebox-size cages, since the spring of 1998.
Another half-dozen were being fed a
medication--they were to be anesthetized, and at
that point some of their muscle tissue would be
removed and they would be killed.
An
aquarium for flathead minows used in another
study was examined. Approximately half of the
fish to be used in the study died in transit--a
higher proportion than usual.
Animal
research has now been established at California
State University at Bakersfield. Therefore, I
will continue to attend IACUC meetings, and I
will apply for the next "non-researchers"
opening, which is expected to become available
in a year or two.
Special Resource & Gifts
Songbirds return, flowers
bloom, overcoats are closet- bound. Warm weather
and the return of spring bring that familiar,
vital surge of... intellectual curiosity and
renewed commitment to animals' well- being!
PSYETA's well- crafted, informative, attitude-
changing advocacy and gift items are precisely
what you and yours need to take part in the
annual renewal of life!
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'. 13 minutes. $19.95 individuals,
$29.95 organizations. Includes booklet with
discussion guide and list of resources.
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 Journal
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.
|
