How
it began...
On
April 27th 2001 Derek Prior of the OU’s Communications
Group wrote to SES saying:
“I
have received a number of complaints about your current advertisement
in Sesame. They allege that this advertisement is incorrect
and defamatory and may be actionably libellous… Professor
Stewart...has stated that neither he nor anyone in Bioscience
would be prepared to allow animal suffering. If indeed this were
the case then their licences would be withdrawn and prosecution
would follow…”
We wrote back
immediately asking for details of the complaints so that we could
comment on them, making it clear that we needed to know which aspects
of the ad were being challenged. In the meantime we defended in
detail (2 sides of A4) the use of the word ‘suffering‘.
Vivien can supply copies of the full refutation but the main points
are:
The Home Office
does not prohibit the causing of suffering to animals.
We quoted from
the OU Science Faculty Animal Ethical Committee’s code of practice
where it refers to
‘the
minimisation of harmful impacts on animals’.
We quoted from the same document:
'Severity
of procedures (i) proposals for use of procedures causing suffering
and regulated by the Home Office...mild procedures will normally
be accepted; moderate procedures will be scrutinised by the executive
sub-committee; severe procedures have rarely been proposed in
the OU. Such proposals will be critically scrutinised by the full
committee and will only be accepted if there is an extremely strong
justification.’
We also quoted
from the preamble to the OU Department of Biological Sciences’s
annual report to the AEC:
‘..in
the OU’s Animal Ethical Committee, the focus of the debate
is on balancing any harm or suffering...against...scientific,
educational, medical and social benefits...The objective is to
minimise the level of suffering.’
(ALL UNDERLINING
IS OURS.)
Professor Stewart,
then, was clearly taking nonsense. Either he is ignorant of the
facts or he thinks that we are.
By 29th May we
had received no reply (a contravention of the Student Charter by
the
Communications (sic) Group!), and sent a reminder, stressing
our right to advertise and our need to know the grounds for any
objections in order to redraft the ad.
Diane Seymour
of the Communications Group wrote to say that she was ‘at a
loss to explain’ why we had not received their letter of 10th
May, which she enclosed. It just contained vague references to their
unwillingness to accept advertisements without reference to the
scientists ‘affected by your claims’ and patronisingly
added, “I am sorry that you are disappointed and upset by this
position…”
What the letters
continued to fail to do was provide details of all the contested
aspects of the ad or say whether they were actually rejecting the
ad. We wrote back on 1st June and, having had no reply by the 11th,
phoned Mr Prior. He said that he had asked Professor Stewart for
clarification of the objections but had had no response.
On
30th July Sheila Forman, the advertising manager of Sesame,
confirmed that Prof. Stewart would be happy with the advert as long
as it said ‘the OU uses…’ rather than ‘kills’,
which he considered to be ‘very emotive and also an incorrect
description of what we do.’ He also objected to the chick logo
on the grounds of it being ‘emotive’. (Perhaps we should
have used a more accurate picture of a chick being decapitated.)
We next decided to try replacing ‘kills’ with ‘sacrifices’,
as this is the term commonly used in biological research, and included
a picture of a rabbit - these are killed for one of the residential
schools. What could possibly go wrong this time? Surely it wouldn’t
get...
LOST?!
Believe it or not - yes. (Perhaps they were short of loo paper at
the Science Faculty.)
On finding that there was no mention of rabbits in the 2001-2 Courses
Descriptions, we submitted yet another version - we don’t
see why we can’t use pictures of animals. There is no question
that the OU kills the species depicted. The Science Faculty have
refused to tell us the numbers used in research since 1991, but
it was 300 chicks a week then. If there had been a reduction you’d
think they’d be pleased to tell us...
STOP PRESS RE AD CENSORSHIP 16th December 2001
OU Head of Biology Professor
Michael Stewart has rejected yet another of our advertisements.
Prof. Stewart now admits that
thousands of animals are actually killed by the OU every year. He
had previously insisted that 'kills' be changed to 'uses', and
thousands are indeed used but returned to the wild for the Ecology
summer school.
However, he is now accepting the word 'sacrifices' (the vivisector's
term for 'kills')
Neither Dr Swithenby nor Professor Bassindale is prepared to concede
that the ad censorship is unjustified and unacceptable.
February 2002
Vivien recently e-mailed
Professor Stewart to ask him to explain his allegations about our
ads:
Dear
Professor Stewart,
I understand that you are the main objector to aspects of the
advertisement in Sesame by Students for Ethical Science
(SES). Our communication with you on the subject has so far been
indirect - via the Communications Group and Sesame Advertising
Manager Sheila Forman.
I responded to the initial allegations in great detail, and a
copy of the refutation was sent to you. As I have so far received
no comments on the points which I raised therein, it would seem
reasonable to ask you now for details of your objections. (If
you have mislaid my correspondence I shall be glad to send you
a copy.)
The initial letter from Derek Prior stated that it was alleged
that the first ad to be banned was 'incorrect, defamatory and
may be actionably libellous.' I have discussed the matter with
a number of people with legal expertise, and they have all stated
that these grounds for objection are without foundation both for
the original ad and subsequent banned ones.
I understand that other members, including officers, of Students
for Ethical Science, have written to you on this matter and on
the issue of the OU's animal experimentation, and have received
no reply. May I remind you of the OU's Student Charter, which
states that correspondence should be replied to within ten university
working days. I realise that Dr Swithenby appears to have been
elected as a spokesman for the Faculty/Department; however, we
would like to hear the views of individual members of staff. I
hope that you will take this opportunity to let us know yours,
and also answer the questions which we have raised. We are, after
all, a society of students, graduates and staff from your own
university - an institution of learning.
Yours sincerely,
Vivien Pomfrey
Professor
Stewart refused to answer the questions.
|
