People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals Research Articles

Animal Alternatives for Drug Development

Animal Alternatives for Drug Development

What makes a good proverb? On the birth and propagation of proverbs

In the present article, we examine the mechanisms of proverbialisation – the birth and propagation of proverbs – and the criteria that boost their chances of propagation and survival. Before tackling the main issues, we introduce the controversial notion of “proverbiality” and the terminological relativity it entails by establishing a scale of consensus for definition criteria in specialised literature. We then present memetics, or memology. This field, which studies the replication of cultural units, offers useful tools through the notions of “meme fitness” and “selection criteria”, which may be adapted and transferred to paremiology in order to describe the qualities that help proverbs catch on and survive. In Section 3, a model for proverbialisation is introduced and the memetic framework is applied to describe the impact of the selection criteria on the specific stages of the process, through concrete examples of sayings that successfully caught on. In the final part, the selection criteria previously identified are applied to a list of candidates in order to appraise their chances of replication. The candidates under study are part of a recent attempt by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) to rewrite famous proverbs and idioms with the aim to make them “animal friendly”. Their proposals include There is more than one way to peel a potato instead of There is more than one way to skin a cat, or Don’t put the caboose before the engine instead of Don’t put the cart before the horse. The analysis reveals that despite a degree of creativity, several selection criteria remain obstacles to the propagation of these proverb candidates.

Monkey Business in a Kangaroo Court: Reimagining Naruto v. Slater as a Litigious Event

Abstract This essay performs a critical rhetorical analysis of out-of-court texts pertaining to Naruto v. Slater, colloquially known as the “Monkey Selfie Lawsuit.” By veering from a legal positivist perspective on law and turning toward theories of the public screen, it argues that while People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) formally lost its case on appeal, it successfully litigated their case in the court of public opinion. It further offers the concept of the “litigious event”—a staged lawsuit designed for mass media dissemination—to explain my perspective. By latching onto the already-viral monkey selfies at the center of the copyright dispute, PETA took advantage of the public screen by bringing a private, logocentric civil suit into a public, image-based digital sphere. Increased coverage of the case allowed PETA's legal team to harness the power of digital media to disseminate important arguments about legal rights for animals. Naruto v. Slater functioned as a trial for media, as a strategic lawsuit for public participation—in other words, as a strategically sound and rhetorically powerful litigious event.

Medijske i promotivne kampanje organizacije za zaštitu prava životinja PETA

This paper deals with the issue of the relationship between humans and animals in the past, from prehistory to the present day, and lays special emphasis on the ideas, goals, and achievements of the organization for the protection of animal rights PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). As people themselves do not problematize their behavior towards animals, there are organizations that try to point out the greatest problems of inhumane treatment of animals in research laboratories, farms, the entertainment industry, but also as the result of the behavior of each individual. Animal protection societies operate in two ways, fighting large industries globally, forcing positive laws, lobbying national governments and international alliances and organizations, but also at the level of each person, trying to take small steps towards developing awareness of the need to care for animals and change society's attitudes towards them. The world's largest organization for the protection of animal rights, PETA, is leading in that effort with its activities and campaigns. Using all means, often on the verging on the scandalous, this organization grabs as much media space as possible, and with the development of modern social networks, it finally has daily access to a large audience of interested people around the world.

The Effectiveness of Varied Forms of Education in Attitudes and Behaviors Towards Veganism


 
 
 
 In today’s society, the number of people who are socially conscious is rising as information becomes increasingly available. Veganism is one expression of social consciousness and while a diet that abstains from animal products dates back to the days of Native Americans, a poll conducted by Gallup found that only three percent of the United States population is vegan (McCarthy).
 Many studies previously conducted have synthesized the reasons why people choose to be vegan, but none of them have touched on how to best shift attitudes and behaviors of non-practitioners. According to a Vomad study, 68% of vegans were abstaining from consuming animals due to the ill-treatment of animals by society. This means that a large population of practitioners adopted veganism through becoming educated about the treatment of animals.
 The origins of veganism are rooted in Native Americans’ notions of duality with nature. Modern philosophical theories regarding the treatment of animals which are intended to educate society includes Ecological Animalism, focused on dualism between humans and nature, and Ontological Veganism, focused on the equality of all living beings and the morality of inflicting pain on others. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a pro-vegan organization, has chosen to educate through polarizing marketing and social media campaigns.
 This poses my research question: How effective is education on the philosophies of veganism in influencing non-vegans’ attitudes and behaviors as compared to education through polarizing marketing and social media campaigns?
 
 
 

Perceptions of Prominent Animal Welfare and Veterinary Care Organizations in the United States.

Simple SummaryPublic perception of animal well-being, and pet animal well-being in particular, remains a significant point of contention. This study ranks prominent animal welfare and veterinary care organizations’ perceived impact on pet animal well-being and health care based on U.S. residents’ perceptions, while explicitly accounting for variation between pet-owning and non-pet-owning households. Results suggest that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is perceived as the most impactful organization followed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Humane Association (AHA) were tied for third most impactful. The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) and the American Pet Products Association (APPA) were tied for fourth most impactful while Banfield was perceived as the least impactful.U.S. residents’ perceptions of the impact of prominent animal welfare and veterinary care organizations on pet animal well-being and health care may not be linked to the organization’s stated mission and effectiveness in advancing it, but to the level of recognition people have for the groups. An online survey of 1000 U.S. residents was used to understand the perceived impact of organizations with self-stated dedication to pet animal well-being. Using a Likert-scale, respondents ranked 13 prominent organizations as having a low to high impact on pet animal well-being and health care. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) had the highest perceived average impact, while People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) had the lowest. A best–worst scaling (BWS) choice experiment was conducted with 7 of the initial 13 organizations to elicit relative rankings by forcing tradeoffs by respondents. Consistent with the Likert-scale results, the ASPCA was ranked as the most impactful organization. The ASPCA’s perceived impact on pet animal well-being and health care may be linked to their high level of recognition among respondents, as this was the organization that respondents most frequently reported having seen/heard stories related to animal well-being and health care.

The Silver Spring monkey controversy: changing cultures of care in twentieth-century laboratory animal research

Abstract In September 1981 police raided the Institute for Behavioral Research (Silver Spring, Maryland, USA) seizing a number of macaque monkeys in response to accusations of animal cruelty against the neuroscientist Edward Taub. Over the following decade a volatile battle was fought as Taub, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the nascent animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), contested the claims and decided the monkeys’ fate. In spite of the monkeys having been surgically altered so as to be incapable of feeling pain a loose alliance of veterinarians, ethologists and animal advocates argued that they nonetheless suffered. Whilst this episode is often seen as a polarized confrontation between science and society, this paper argues that the Silver Spring monkey controversy saw two historically distinct cultures of laboratory animal care meet resulting in the development of new approaches to animal welfare in biomedical science.

EPA proposes to waive toxicity test on birds

Pesticide manufacturers will no longer have to conduct a test in which chemicals are fed to waterfowl or upland game birds for 5 days to determine whether the substances are toxic to them, under a proposal announced by the US Environmental Protection Agency on Sept. 17. The agency claims that the test is unnecessary because another test, in which a single dose of a pesticide is given to a song bird and either an upland game bird or a waterfowl, is sufficient to evaluate risks of the pesticide to birds. Waterfowl include species such as mallard ducks. Upland game birds include northern bobwhite quail. The EPA based its decision on a review conducted in collaboration with the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The reviewers examined 119 pesticides that entered the US market between 1998 and 2017. They found no risks determined using the 5-day

White normativity, animal advocacy and PETA’s campaigns

In this article, I argue that some of the campaigns that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) carried out in the USA are white normative and that the presence of this normative whiteness is symptomatic of the same larger problem in animal advocacy. I contend that PETA’s campaigns are white normative for two sets of reasons. First, PETA’s campaigns promote racist hierarchies; second, their campaigns contribute to black people’s disengagement from animal justice, undermining the pursuit of black justice. Further, I argue that, even though PETA’s campaigns are symptomatic of how many animal advocates are white normative, this does not need to be the case, for there are advocacy alternatives that resist normative whiteness.

Hostile Hashtag Takeover: An Analysis of the Battle for Februdairy

Hostile Hashtag Takeover: An Analysis of the Battle for Februdairy

The Monkey Selfie case and the concept of authorship: an EU perspective

... The dispute between, initially, the Wikimedia Foundation and UK wildlife photographer David Slater and, subsequently, between the latter and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) over copyright ownership of the (now infamous) self-portrait photographs—selfies—taken in Indonesia by a Celebes crested macaque named Naruto (also known as the ‘Monkey Selfies’) has attracted widespread attention, both among lawyers and the general public. In 2014 the Wikimedia Foundation rejected Slater’s takedown request to remove from a Wikipedia page one of the photographs taken by Naruto. The Foundation did so on grounds that no copyright could subsist in a work created by an animal. It also concluded that the argument by Slater that he had befriended a group of macaques and set up the photographic equipment, so that they would use it and possibly take pictures (with him editing the resulting photographs), held no value.1

Keeping it ‘inside the fence’: an examination of responses to a farm-animal welfare issue on Twitter

Social media sites have become common sources of information about current affairs, and animal-activist organisations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), use these networks as campaign tools to raise awareness against animal agriculture. The aim of the present study was to understand how an animal-welfare issue was discussed in Twitter, in Australia. Twitter Application Programing Interface data featuring keywords and hashtags were initially collected between April and May 2014 to examine tweets on animal-welfare issues in the absence of a triggering event. In July 2014, PETA released footage portraying ill-treatment of sheep in Australian shearing sheds, generating 9610 tweets in 7 days, including themes such as disgust, condemnation of the cruelty, and calls to boycott the wool industry. PETA’s social-media campaign began 24 h before comment in conventional news media online, highlighting the role of social media in leading conventional media campaigning. Associated Twitter activity from the wool industry was limited. It is concluded that Twitter is not currently an effective medium for conversations between producers and the community about farm-animal welfare, despite encouragement from industry. While there are positives for producers and industry to be on Twitter, including the promotion of their business and communication within their micro-publics, Twitter as a platform may not be ideal for generating a dialogue between producers and the community. Further research into how people engage with the content, not just through the study of retweets and amount of traffic, is required to understand whether social media has potential to change attitudes towards animal production.

Big data, big deadlines spur change in tox testing

Attendees at the 2003 Chemspec exhibition in Manchester, England, may not remember the product introductions. They may not recall that the sector was in a slump. But many still speak of the attack on Huntingdon Life Sciences, in which company representatives were hit with paint bombs thrown by animal welfare activists. Abusive treatment of animals at Huntingdon’s Princeton, N.J., laboratory had been exposed by an undercover agent of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in 1998, making the firm a target for protesters calling for an end to the use of animals in chemical toxicology testing. The confrontation in Manchester and others like it resulted in a perception that industry and animal advocates are in irreconcilable conflict pitting the requirement for in vivo chemical testing against an absolutist demand for its elimination. The idea of a major company such as Dow Chemical sitting down and coming to any

PETA undermines science and scientists

On behalf of the National Association for Biomedical Research and our more than 360 institutional members nationwide, I write to express concerns regarding the News Feature “The insurgent” (23 January, p. [366][1]), in which D. Grimm profiled Justin Goodman of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The article devotes the majority of its space to what easily could be interpreted as an endorsement of Goodman and PETA. PETA is an organization that has long been publicly opposed to the use of animals in biomedical research. Goodman, a well-known animal rights activist, has made clear his personal mission of vilifying research. An online article by PETA promoting Goodman's actions refers to biomedical research facilities as “torture chambers” and notes that he has organized campaigns to end research with nonhuman primates, even going so far as to chain himself to an iron fence at the University of Connecticut's 125th anniversary celebration in protest ([ 1 ][2]). Goodman and PETA were also permitted to present a poster at last year's AAAS Annual Meeting in Chicago, where they cited data that the number of Americans believing that ethical animal research is “morally wrong” was on the rise ([ 2 ][3]). For years, many biomedical researchers, their staff, and their families have been egregiously targeted by PETA and understandably are demoralized. It is shocking that Science would take the time and effort to highlight and chronicle the sentiments of someone whose sole mission is to derail biomedical research that is dependent on animal models. 1. [↵][4]Peta2, Justin Goodman: Exposing the Torture Chamber ([www.peta2.com/heroes/justin-goodman/][5]). 2. [↵][6]EurekAlert, “New study shows growing opposition to animal tests” ([www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-02/pfte-nss021314.php][7]). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.347.6220.366 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: http://www.peta2.com/heroes/justin-goodman/ [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-02/pfte-nss021314.php

Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare.

As consumers have become more interested in understanding how their food is produced, scrutiny and criticism have increased regarding intensified food animal production methods. Resolution of public concerns about animal agricultural practices depends on understanding the myriad factors that provide the basis for concerns. An online survey of 798 U.S. households was conducted to investigate relationships between household characteristics (demographics, geographic location, and experiences) and level of concern for animal welfare as well as sources used to obtain information on the subject. Because recent media attention has focused on animal care practices used in the U.S. swine industry, respondents were also asked specific questions pertaining to their perceptions of pig management practices and welfare issues and their corresponding pork purchasing behavior. Respondents reporting higher levels of concern about animal welfare were more frequently female, younger, and self-reported members of the Democratic Party. Fourteen percent of respondents reported reduction in pork consumption because of animal welfare concerns with an average reduction of 56%. Over half of the respondents (56%) did not have a primary source for animal welfare information; those who identified a primary information source most commonly used information provided by animal protection organizations, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Midwest participants were significantly, at the 5% significance level, less concerned about domestic livestock animal welfare and more frequently reported not having a source for animal welfare information than those from other regions of the United States. Overall, the U.S. livestock and poultry industries and other organizations affiliated with animal agriculture appear to be less used public sources of information on animal welfare than popular animal protection organizations. Improved understanding of the factors that contribute to consumers' evolving perceptions of the care and welfare of farm animals is an essential step toward enhanced sustainability and social responsibility in contemporary food production systems.

2012 Lush Lobbying Prize Winner: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), India

2012 Lush Lobbying Prize Winner: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), India

THE BURDENS OF CARING

In this paper I use an ecofeminist and a postfeminist framework to assess two images from the long-running ‘I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur’ campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). I find that, while sexism persists in these ads, the postfeminist context illuminates a specific problem in the way that hypersexualised models are not only objectified for men, but are positioned as celebrated exemplaries, whom other women should aspire to be. This exploits not just the naked models, but all women, as it falsely links sexualisation as imperative to animal protection and perpetuates female responsibility for the burden of care. Ultimately, I seek to show how a greater consideration and awareness of the overlapping struggles fought by social movements might strengthen their affinity coalitions.

The role of professionalization regarding female exploitation in the Nonhuman Animal rights movement

Adams (2004, The pornography of meat. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd), Deckha (2008, Disturbing images: PETA and the feminist ethics of animal advocacy. Ethics and the environment, 13(2), 35–76), Gaarder (2011, Women and the animal rights movement. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press), Glasser (2011, Tied oppressions: an analysis of how sexist imagery reinforces speciesist sentiment. The Brock review, 12(1), 51–68), and others have criticized People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for sexually exploiting young women in outreach and fundraising efforts. This article extends these critiques in addressing the problematic relationship between objectified volunteer female activists and Nonhuman Animal rights organizations (Animal Liberation Victoria, Fish Love, LUSH, and PETA). These organizations have largely professionalized and have consequently refocused their priorities on fundraising for organizational maintenance. An exploration into the social movement literature on the phenomenon of professionalization casts the use of young women's bodies for financial gains in a more troubling light. The Nonhuman Animal rights industry that exploits the sexuality of female activists ultimately exploits archetypes of women as nurturers and temptresses. These groups also utilize women's vulnerability by targeting female consumers and their sensitivity to body image. This article places female objectification within the logic of social movement professionalization. These organizations merge advocacy with capitalist interests to the ultimate disadvantage of women and Nonhuman Animals alike. The exploitation of female stereotypes and ultimately the female body, it is argued, is ineffective in challenging ideologies of oppression as both a practical and a theoretical matter.

The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage

This study sought to explore the informational themes and information sources cited by the media to cover stories of cultured meat in both the United States and the European Union. The results indicated that cultured meat news articles in both the United States and the European Union commonly discuss cultured meat in terms of benefits, history, process, time, livestock production problems, and skepticism. Additionally, the information sources commonly cited in the articles included cultured meat researchers, sources from academia, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), New Harvest, Winston Churchill, restaurant owners/chefs, and sources from the opposing countries (e.g. US use some EU sources and vice versa). The implications of this study will allow meat scientists to understand how the media is influencing consumers' perceptions about the topic, and also allow them to strategize how to shape future communication about cultured meat.

Espacios y especies en intersección: Cuerpos femeninos y la esfera doméstica en el activismo por los derechos de los animales

The object of this article is to explore how current animal rights activism draws on images of women-animal corporeal hybrids to articulate a plight for animals, and how the domestic setting used in such campaigns is strategically conveyed to either instill sympathy or abhorrence at the ‘miscegenation’ of species within a single bodily space. I begin with a few observations on the matter of animal ontology in accordance with the muchdebated notion of commonness with humans (and in particular women). I then make a comparative analysis between video campaigns by two major animal rights organizations, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to evaluate how their rhetoric of species hybridism conveys different assumptions regarding womanhood, and how domestic settings serve as instrumental tools through which to strengthen their rhetoric of animal liberation.