|
Home
Aims
History
OU
Research
Ad
Censorship
First
Class Censorship
Alternatives
to Animals
Message
Board
Communicating
with the OU
SES
Literature
Books
Links
Contacts
Site
Map
|
Some of our campaigning activities
- Many years ago Students
for Ethical Science (SES) sent the Science Faculty a book and
video on alternatives to animal experiments in education. These
were never acknowledged.
- Also some years ago
we sent them specific details of a plant-based alternative to
the rat liver experiment in S203, which has been carried over
to SXR 270. This too was never acknowledged.
- For many years we
asked for details of the numbers of animals used in OU research.
After the first time, when the OU complied with the request, these
details have been withheld.
- We sent the Science
Administrator the results of a survey of our members' views and
experiences in relation to animal experimentation, and commented
on the Science Faculty's own survey.
- We requested sight
of an Animal Ethical Committee report on the ethical issues in
undergraduate teaching in biology courses. This was refused.
- In late 2001 we sent
relevant extracts from the 1999 report by EU advisory body ECVAM
on alternatives in higher education to the Dean of Science. From
past experience we were not surprised to find that this was apparently
the first that the Science Faculty had heard of the report.
- More recently we
sent the Dean information about EURCA, a European resource of
information about alternatives for biology teachers.
- Also recently, we
have pointed out certain and possible inaccuracies in the annual
Biology Department report to the Animal Ethical Committee. Several
changes have now been made in line with our comments.
- We have also pointed
out important omissions in the Course Descriptions Guide. Again,
some changes have resulted.
- Very recently we sent
information on animal-free alternatives to psychology experiments
which were featured in the discontinued course SD206, with a view
to their being used in the replacement course.
- Many, many communications
have been ignored, for example letters asking for clarification
regarding the censorship of our Sesame ads. The consequences of
this included lost publicity and the need to hire a lawyer to
progress the issue.
- We have posted information
about OU animal use and alternatives on FirstClass conferences
which are likely to be visited by people who would appreciate
it.
- We have proposed
and defended motions to OUSA Conference, many of which have been
passed. We have also, for many years, attempted to discover what,
if any, action OUSA has taken to implement the consequent policies.
Our correspondence has been ignored and misinterpreted, despite
being clearly worded.
- In 2002 we produced
a 4-page submission to OUSA, about animal experimentation and
alternatives, at short notice.
- We have produced
a range of literature which is displayed on our stalls at OUSA
Conference and OU Open Days.
- We exchange information,
news and ideas with InterNICHE, the International Network of Campaigns
and Individuals for Humane Education. SES Committee member Vivien
Pomfrey is on their e-mail list, through which she keeps abreast
of developments in humane education around the world and lets
other participants know what is happening at the OU.
- We enable members
to contact each other via our optional Networking scheme.
- We produce a newsletter
for members, and provide more frequent updates to members in our
e-mail group. Pressure of work means that we have only managed
two newsletters a year for the past few years.
- Vivien became interested
in the psychological effects of mandatory educational animal experimentation
on the field of biology, and wrote an article on the subject,
which was published in the June issue of the OU's Psychological
Society newsletter.
As you can see, we campaign
on a range of fronts - a holistic approach for a complex issue.
Much of the work requires lengthy and extensive research, and this
summary is obviously not comprehensive.
|
