university of ljubljana
UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
English
STOP ANIMAL TESTING
PROJECT
Nuša Florjančič
Katja Jekovec
Manja Robič-Zima
Kaja Smrkolj
Valentina Žalig
Ljubljana, March 12 th 2009
CONTENTS
2.1 PETA AND ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS ............................................ 4
2.3 ANIMALS, ALTERNATIVES AND HLS ............................................................... 7
2
1.
INTRODUCTION
We live in a certain period of time when the topic of rights is growing more and more important. Consequently the idea of rights is no longer limited only to human beings, but is it extending its domain to animals as well. This is precisely what one of the largest animal rights organizations, People for the Ethnical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has been arguing. The organization’s motto is that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment« (Web page PETA 2009). Animal testing is therefore one of the most important areas of PETA’s activities. Consequently PETA started a campaign against Huntingdon Life
Sciences (HLS), a company that conducts tests on animals.
The aim of our project was first to make a research on how PETA approached in this campaign. This in covered in the theoretical part of the report. Nuša wrote about PETA and its standpoint in animal testing, while Katja concentrated on PETA’s politics and strategy.
Valentina made a research on which animals are used for testing and also focused on methods that are alternative to torture of animals. She also paid attention to our contender, HLS. Kaja focused on speechwriting since writing a speech was a central part of our campaign. After gathering all the theoretical knowledge our project moved to a higher level; we made an application of PETA’s campaign. This is reported by Manja in the practical part of the report.
Evidence of our practical work can be seen in the appendices.
During our study we used different information sources. We combined scientific literature with journal articles and web sources in order to cover our topic completely. In this report we used the methods of analysing and interpreting secondary evidence.
3
2.
THEORETICAL PART
2.1
PETA AND ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
PETA is an animal rights organization. It has more than two million members and supporters. That makes it the largest animal rights organization in the world. It is »an international non-profit charitable organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, with affiliates in the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, India, and the Asia-Pacific Region« (Web page PETA 2009). Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and defending the rights of all animals. One of PETA’s most important goals is to educate policymakers and the public about animal abuse and to promote kind treatment of animals. PETA tries to achieve its goals »through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns« (Web page PETA 2009). It does not matter which way it chooses, every time PETA emphasizes the ethical treatment of animals.
In our campaign we tried to influence HLS, which performs experiments on animals, to stop using animals in those experiments. Our campaign included many different ways of persuasion that will be described later in the report, but all were based on the claim, that the
HLS has to treat animals ethically. That means that HLS should stop using animals in its research programs.
Therefore, our most important starting-point was, that animal testing is unethical and that it must be stopped. Animals experience pain and suffering and because of that, painful experiments on animals are not ethical and should (or must) be reduced (Yarri 2005, 58, 64).
Experiments on animals are not unethical only because animals experience pain and suffer at the time of the experiment, but also because experiments can have long-term consequences, such as anxiety, fear, distress, suffering, weight loss, sleep loss, teary eyes etc. (Yarri 2005,
60). Animals do experience pain and considering the existence of animal minds and animal suffering, that provides a foundation for animal rights and subsequently for a more positive and more ethical treatment, which we tried to achieve throughout our campaign. Ethical treatment of animals was our preliminary goal.
As Bentham (Web page PETA 2009) says, the capacity for suffering is the vital characteristic »that gives a being the right to equal consideration. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree as humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love.« So, whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we have to consider those facts. Every creature should have
4
the right to live free from pain and suffering. This is the reason, why we have been emphasizing, that animals have rights and they deserve ethical treatment. Demand for animal rights is according to Bentham (Web page PETA 2009) »not just a philosophy – it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use.«
We were aware that we need to expose the problem of experiments on animals in HLS since the beginning of our campaign. Consequently, our campaign was not directly targeted to
HLS, but to the public. We had to inform and persuade the public that experiments on animals are not ethical and must be stopped. For example, we tried to achieve this with the use of jumbo posters, that were addressing the public (and indirectly HLS) to »be ethical« and contribute to the atmosphere in which HLS would be forced to stop animal testing.
2.2
PETA’S POLITICS AND STRATEGY
In order to understand PETA's campaigns it is necessary that we engage in research about its politics and strategy. PETA’s politics is largely characterized with feminist connotation which is a consequence of the organization’s predominately female membership. Female domination in animal rights movements and organizations such as PETA can be easily explained. There is actually a close relationship between feminist movements and animal rights movements; they both strive for the end of oppression, abuse and suffering. Therefore contemporary animal rights organizations such as PETA have become »gender direct movements« (Munro 2001, 46–7).
However, PETA’s politics and strategy are in one way special: they contain sexism as a method for attracting public attention and for achieving its goal; that is to defend animal rights. Therefore, we can say that in its campaigns PETA has employed a radical stance of feminism. Its campaigns are full of sexualized images of women advocating animal rights.
One of the most controversial campaigns was the Anti-fur campaign whose motto was “I’d
Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur”. In these campaigns we can see a close connection between radical feminist politics and the politics of animal rights. For example, there was an advertisement showing a naked woman holding a bunny and the text was: Hands Off the
Buns”. “/This/ sexualized message can be read as an instruction to leave both animals and women alone” (Deckha 2008, 45). However, critics say that in such advertisements PETA’s goal of defending animal rights suddenly vanishes, since the only thing that people notice is the image of a naked woman represented as a sex object. What is more, using female body as a political tool to achieve your goal is a clear reflection of pure feminist politics that has little
5
in common with animal rights. Consequently, some argue that PETA is not really interested in protecting animal rights anymore as long as their members can successfully carry on the politics of feminism and sexism. These critics have pointed out some recommendations for
PETA’s future work. Some believe that PETA should expand its mandate to defend female rights as well, while others insists on PETA abandoning its sexists approach as a method for achieving its goals (Deckha 2008 37–49).
And how does PETA react on these attacks about its politics and strategy? PETA believes that exposing nude women for defending animal rights is far from being offensive for women or other marginalized group. The only social group that sees PETA’s campaigns as offensive and exploitative of women is people who do not believe in liberalization of any other group but their own. Therefore, it is logical that these people do not understand “the animal rights message” this advertisements are delivering. What is more, PETA believes that such advertisements and campaigns are liberating for women. These advertisements are certainly not pornographic, but they are “/…/ advertisements for charity, activism and morality. To use sexuality to promote morality is an interesting twist /…/” to say that women can to with their bodies whatever their want. PETA’s ultimate aim is to defend animal rights and to put an end to animal suffering. In order to reach this goal PETA is prepared to use all necessary means, including nudity. And nudity has turned out as a very efficient tactics since nudity (especially female) is probably the most noticed topic. As long as this tactics is what makes the organization successful in achieving it aims, PETA sees no reason in abandoning it (Web page PETA 2009). The only true change in PETA’s work is that its campaigns have recently become more gender neutral (they started including men too), but the nudity still remains an important element of their campaigns (Deckha 2008, 57).
PETA’s radical politics also reflected in campaigns against animal testing. One of the advertisements in these campaigns was showing a (black) man locked in a cage with electrodes on his brain. This advertisement demonstrated the connection between human and animal oppression and exploitation. The fact that the man in the advertisement was Afro-
American made even a stronger point; animals are enslaved just like Afro-Americans once were (Web page PETA 2009).
Finally, we believed that it was very important for our project to understand that the aim of the advertisements used in PETA’s campaigns in neither to animalize women nor to sexualize them. Therefore, the true foundation of PETA’s politics and strategy is perhaps the so called posthumanist ethics. By this we mean the “sexual objectification of women for posthumanist ends /…/” (Deckha 2008, 58). This is precisely what we arguing in our project, however, as
6
far as the methods are concerned we approached the campaign in a less radical way.
Understanding PETA’s politics and its campaign strategy was surely an important element of our project because it helped us in realizing PETA’s (our) weaknesses and strengths. We realized that PETA is a rather controversial organization that is constantly attacked by other social groups and is forced to defend itself on a daily basis. Since we were organizing a winning campaign we decided that it would be more suitable to use a less radical strategy that will be described in our practical part of the project.
2.3
ANIMALS, ALTERNATIVES AND HLS
Many dogs and cats, used in laboratory experiments come from companies that breed animals for research purposes, many others were once close to happy pets. Shelters in certain states in USA are required to turn over homeless dogs to facilities for medical experiments.
Many animals come from animal dealers, who sell them to laboratories. Primates that are being used in laboratories are primarily captive-bred. Sometimes laboratories also buy unwanted chimpanzees from zoos and circuses; some are infants of shoot chimpanzee mothers. Laboratories use a lot of different animals. So they also use birds, hamsters, gerbils, mice, rats and rabbits. Charles River Laboratories is one of the world's largest suppliers of laboratory animals to research laboratories and medical schools all over the world (PETA
2008a).
In laboratories animals are handled roughly. They live life of deprivation. Primates are naturally living in families, but in laboratories they are kept alone. Many animals live in fear and desperation. A 2004 article in Nature magazine indicated that mice housed in standard laboratory cages suffer from impaired brain development and an anxious behavioural profile
(PETA 2008b).
Alternatives to animal testing are proven to be efficient and reliable. Non-animal methods take less time to complete, cost less and are not plagued with differences among species.
Humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients, as well as sophisticated in vitro , genomic, and computer-modeling techniques. For example,
Pharmagene Laboratories, in England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technologies in the process of drug development and testing (PETA
2008c). The trend in modern research in recent years has been the recognition of animals not serving as good models for the processes in human body (PETA 2008b).
HLS are the biggest contract testing laboratory in Europe. They have about 70,000 animals tested every year: rabbits, cats, hamsters, dogs, guinea-pigs, birds and primates. These
7
animals are destined to suffer and die in experiment. HLS test for: pesticides, drugs, herbicides, food additives. HLS has been infiltrated and exposed many times, all of those for animal cruelty (SHAC 2009a).
SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) is an movement of most activity in the field of fighting against HLS. It took over the role of PETA since it has been legally forced to stop its actions against HLS. It works as a leaderless resistance group (Garfinkel 2003).
2.4
SPEECHWRITNIG
The goal of our campaign is to make people condemn animal testing and help us stop HLS with testing on animals. That is why we needed to write a persuasive speech to educate people of the torture animals are experiencing in the laboratories. After analyzing our audience we have come to conclusions, that our speech is meant for everyone to hear it. From teenagers and young adults attending our concert, where speech was performed, to adults hearing it on television. Since there were no specific group of people it was hard to determine their demography, objectives, pressure points and taboos. Instead we focused more energy on the very content of the speech being animal testing. Different anecdotes and stories about animal cruelty, describing them in great detail, so that listeners were be able to imagine a picture of cruelty in their heads, was crucial if we wanted to rely on people’s emotions. (Dean 2001, 27–
32)
Greek philosophers were known to write the most persuasive speeches, but nowadays it is hard to perform speeches that are longer than 5 minutes, since people will not have the will or concentration to listen it all. Hence a long speech, in which we praise our society, our compassion to those in pain, associate our beliefs with theirs and give them a clearer picture of what we stand for was not a good idea. We tried to include some characteristics of Greek philosophers’ speeches but only those, who trigger the strongest emotions, that is making them see what animals have suffered. And because PETA has a bad reputation, since it kills most of the animals it saves, Demosthenes gave us an example on how to defend our actions.
First he confessed the wrong things he did, spoke about his emotions and than asked the public, what would they do in his case. The same was in our speech. We let people know, that we do not like the killing either, but if this prevents animals from suffering; it is something we feel we are bound to do. (Nolan 1996, 362–63)
Since there was main stress on criticizing animal testing, we took a look at Cicero. We skilfully used rhetorical questions, so that our contender will be unable to make responses.
The criticism did intensify. We started with letting people know of ethics regarding animal
8
testing and then put the blame on our competitor and at the end condemned them for all the pain and suffer they have caused. (Nolan 1996, 363) And since many people listening use cosmetics products, we did not criticize their use. Our aim was to make them feel anger and hatred against our competitor and not to feel ashamed. (Perlman 1992, 56–7)
As far as the linguistic characteristics are concerned, we used conversational style, avoided passive and long compound words, and used signpost in order to make the speech understandable and attract the audience. We did not forget about the rule of three and other tricks that play with people’s emotions (Perlman 1992, 57).
3.
PRACTICAL PART
Our biggest challenge was to design a campaign against HLS on one hand, but on the other hand also to inform public. The title was “Stop animal testing” and our aim was not just to create a campaign, but to create a winning campaign, which could bring successful results.
First we have to clear up what successful and winning campaign means for us. We knew that our goal had to be reachable and that we can not change the world and make all industries stop their tests on animals. Our goal was to collect as much information as possible on animal testing in HLS, and than to present our results to public. We wanted to have an influence on public opinion, so that they could really see what is happening behind closed doors of cosmetic and other industries, which are performing tests on animals.
The major focus of animal protection campaigns in the past was to change laws and regulations to provide more protection for animals and to raise public awareness. There was not much activity on the legislative/regulatory front because the animal rights movements had trouble developing campaigns that attack the system. Most of the animal rights movements and organizations are still in the public awareness phase as far as tactics are concerned. While most animal groups confined themselves to relatively staid public awareness campaigns,
PETA has take public awareness to new levels. Their campaigns were very aggressive and that is why their impact was not always positive. Also a number of animal activists have responded very negatively. As mentioned before, we were organizing a winning campaign so we decided for a less radical strategy that is otherwise practiced by PETA.
In order to create a successful campaign we had to be careful not to make the same mistakes. Most explanations of social movements' success concentrate on the tactics and traits of protest groups and on the responses of the state, largely ignoring the characteristics and responses of other targeted organizations (Jasper and Poulsen 1993: 640). The outcome of
9
protest campaigns are often influenced by the actions of the organizations under attack. What is very important is pre-existing vulnerabilities of certain organizations, their strategic responses to the protest, especially damaging 'blunders' and their ability to mobilize a countermovement. What is possible is that the larger that movement becomes, the more counter mobilizing it may inspire and the less it may be able to attain specific stated goals
(Jasper and Poulsen 1993: 640).
So our first task was to collect as much information on HLS as possible. We had to know, how they are doing their researches, which animals they are using for their tests and what kind of methods they are using. To reach that, our group had to split into smaller parts, and members of one part of the group were infiltrated into the company (HLS) as employed. That is the way how they were able to get information about animal testing in HLS, without HLS knowing anything about it. It was very important for us, that people from HLS did not know anything about our research, so they could not organize counter-attack against our group or started to hide their tests. So members of our group worked in HLS and when we collect enough information about HLS’s tests and work, they came out and present evidences to whole group.
Until that point our work was secret. We were collecting information which we could use in our campaign against animal testing. After that phase, it was time to present our results to public and reveal what HLS is doing to animals. First we made leaflets and posters on which the main points were presented. We also presented our view on jumbo posters, which were placed next to freeway. Through connections on TV and radio station we were able to record a free radio and to shoot a tree TV commercial. Both commercials were being presented for one month. At the end of our campaign we organized a big concert with animal rights music groups and we also invited Jadranka Juras as one of most prominent Slovenian animal protector. The concert was the peak of our campaign and also our speech was presented right at that concert.
10
4.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the aim of our project was to investigate how PETA organized a campaign against HLS in order to stop animal testing. Our project was divided into theoretical and practical part. Both parts are full of important findings that are presented in this report. In the theoretical part we first presented PETA and its goals. Its ultimate goal, that we also tried to achieve is our campaign, is to stop animal testing. PETA argues that experiments on animals are not ethical, because animals experience pain and suffer during such experiments.
According to PETA, any creature should have a right to live free from pain and suffering.
Therefore, PETA promotes animal rights and that is exactly what we did in our campaign. In the second part of theoretical part, we were researching PETA’s politics and strategy. We discovered that PETA’s radical politics (which is often criticised) also reflected in campaigns against animal testing. But since we were organizing a winning campaign, we decided to pick a softer version of PETA’s strategy. Nevertheless, we wanted to be heard and approved by the public. Our report also dedicated special attention to alternatives to animal testing. These were important stage in our campaign in order to have good arguments when fighting against our contenders, HLS. We also focused on speechwriting since writing a winning speech was one of the most important element of our campaign. In practical part of our project that is reported at the end we designed a campaign, with considering the most important parts of a successful campaign. First we split our group into smaller parts and gather information about HLS and than we went with those information into public and organized a concert with live music. The peak of our campaign was a speech, which was presented at the concert.
Finally, we learnt that organizing a campaign is a long-lasting process that develops in several phases. When organizing a winning campaign for animal rights movements such as
PETA there are many things that must be taken in notice and this is precisely what we were trying to present in this report.
11
5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dean, Fletcher. 2001. The seven deadly sins of speechwriting. Executive Speeches 16(1),
27–32.
Deckha, Maneesha. 2008. Disturbing images. PETA and the feminist ethics of animal advocacy. Ethics & the Environment 13(2), 35–69.
Garfinkel, Simson 2003. Leaderless resistance today. First Monday 8(3). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1040/961 (13. 3.
2009).
Jasper, James M. (1993) Fighting back: Vulnerabilities, Blunders and Countermobilization by the Targets in three Animal Rights Campaings. Social Forum 4(8), 639–657.
Munro, Lyle. 2001. Caring about Blood, Flesh and Pain: Women’s Standing in the Animal
Protection Movement. Society & Animals 9(1), 43–61.
Nolan, Joseph. 1992. How to campaign. Vital speeches of the day 62(12), 369–74.
Perlman, Alan M. 1992. Effective Speechwriting. Executive Speeches 7(1), 55–60.
PETA. 2009. Available at: http://www.peta.org/ (12. 3. 2009).
PETA. 2008a. How animals wind up in labs. Available at: http://www.stopanimaltests.com/AnimalsWindupinLabs.asp (8. 12. 2008).
PETA. 2008b. Animal experimentation point, counterpoint. Available at: http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-pointcounterpoint.asp (8. 12. 2008).
SHAC. 2008. Who are HLS? What do they test? Huntingdon life sciences exposed.
Available at: http://www.shac.net/HLS/who_are_hls.html (8. 12. 2008).
Yarri, Donna. 2005. The Ethics of Animal Experimentation . Oxford: Oxford Scholarship
Online.
12
6.
APPENDICES
6.1
PRACTICAL PART
6.1.1 Infiltration into Huntingdon Life Sciences: These posters were distributed after our member infiltrated into Huntingdon Life Sciences.
HUNTINGDON
HAUNTED
SEEING IS BELIEVING
13
STOP
HLS
ANIMAL
CRUELTY
14
6.1.2 Jumbo posters: We had jumbo posters in two parts. We presented our slogans in city’s centres, in shopping centres, besides motorways etc.
15
6.2
WINNING SPEECH
Once upon a time, there was a unique dog called Lassie. She was really something. She was as brave as Hercules, if she had to rescue her owner. Everybody loved her and she loved everyone. But than, something happened. Her owner, little boy wanted to invent a new spray for his hair to attract some girls in school. So… he started testing different poisonous chemicals on Lassie. And what happened, the poor dog, who loved the owner more than herself, died just to make the little boy more beautiful. Yes, this is not a fairy-tale, these kinds of things only happen in reality. And this is where we start. Testing on animals is not only unethical, it is cruel, it is murder. In many laboratories animals are handled roughly. They are scared, they suffer, they die. They live the life of deprivation, fear and desperation. Taken out from their natural environment is only a peak of an iceberg. They are forced to live in a small cage, cut open without any anaesthesia, and what is most unacceptable, is that people are aware of those things. And what do they do?
The cruellest enterprise that carries out testing on animals every day is Huntingdon Life
Sciences, the largest contract testing laboratory in Europe. About 750 dogs and 190 primates are tested and killed in the name of science each year at HLS. Now tell me something. What is their excuse? What is their excuse?
Many times, as arguments for testing on animals we hear: »Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals«, »If we did not use animals, we would have to use people«, »Animals help in the fight against cancer«. But relying on animal tests is not only marauder for animals but the results can be dangerous or misleading for human being.
Definitely, drugs are also tested on people, because animals’ tests have proven to be unreliable, and the data cannot be used in medical purposes. Sometimes extrapolating data from rat to mice is impossible, how is it than possible to do that in relation to human being?
The argument about animals helping to fight against the cancer is absolutely stupid and primitive. With educating people about the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, living in a clean environment would probably be more efficient in the fight against the cancer, than animal testing.
Animals are our children, who are unable to speak for themselves, so we have to help them reach out. What Huntington Live Science is doing, it is … there is not a word to describe it. And it is even crueller, because there are methods that are more human and give us even better results. Modern technology gives us a lot of other possibilities instead of using animals as models. Non-animal methods take less time to complete, cost less and are not
16
plagued with differences among species. Cell and tissue culture (in vitro) studies can be used in researches to cure cancer, AIDS, and also for other pharmaceutical products. The trend in modern research in recent years has been the recognition of animals not serving as good models for the processes in human body. So, HLS, what do you have to say now?
There were many accusations against PETA and euthanasia. But let me just say something. You can not even imagine the pain, fear and suffering of those animals. And people that are supposed to be scientist carry out animal tests. We cannot let them do what they do. No living being in the world should experience what they did. And if we have a chance to prevent such inhumane action to be taken against them, well than this is something we are bound to do, even if it makes us do something we would never think of.
Today we all have a chance to say no. We must all come together and put this suffering to an end. Let us show the world, how we feel. Let us say no! Let us say NO to animal testing!
Let us STOP animal testing!
6.3
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
6.3.1 Minutes of the 1 st meeting “Winning a campaign”
Held on October 10 th
2008 at 13pm at Gregorino
Present: Kaja Smrkolj, Nuša Florjančič, Katja Jekovec, Valentina Žalig, Manja Robič – Zima
Absent: none
Agenda:
1.
Selection of topic for assignment
2.
Distribution of roles in a team
3.
Set the date for next meeting
1 st
item: We decided to run a campaign against animal testing.
2 nd
item: roles were distributed:
Chairperson: Kaja Smrkolj
Secretary: Valentina Žalig
Reporter: Manja Robič – Zima
Time keeper: Nuša Florjančič
Progress chaser: Katja Jekovec
17
3 rd item: The team will set the date for next meeting through e-mails.
The meeting ended at 14.15 pm.
Minutes taker:
Kaja Smrkolj
6.3.2 Minutes of the 2nd meeting
Held on October 16th 2008, FDV, 14:30
Present: Kaja Smrkolj, Katja Jekovec, Nuša Florjančič, Valentina Žalig.
Absent: Manja Robič-Zima.
Agenda:
1. selecting an appropriate organization.
2. distribution of roles.
3. set the date for the next meeting.
1st item: We decided that we must do some research on which organization suits the best for us.
2nd item: Roles were distributed:
1. Kaja will search for information in library.
2. Katja and Manja will search on the Internet, aiming at articles.
3. Nuša and Valentina will search on the Internet also, only aiming on diffrent organozations web sides.
3rd item: The team will set the date for the next meeting thrue e-mails.
The meeting ended at 15:30.
Minutes taker:
Valentina Žalig
6.3.3
Minutes of the 3rd meeting
Held on October 21 st 2008 at 12pm at FDV
18
Present: Kaja Smrkolj, Nuša Florjančič, Katja Jekovec, Valentina Žalig, Manja Robič – Zima
Absent: none
Agenda:
1. Deciding about our competitor
2. Distribution of assignments for scenario
3. Set the date for next meeting
1 st
item: Our competitor will be L'oreal, the company which tests its products on animals.
2 nd
item:
Kaja Smrkolj: company L'oreal
Katja Jekovec: agency PETA
Manja Robič – Zima: L'oreal's animal testing
Valentina Žalig: work of PETA against animal testing
Nuša Florjančič: put scenario together
3 rd
item: The team will set the date for next meeting through e-mails.
The meeting ended at 12.25 pm.
Minutes taker:
Kaja Smrkolj
6.3.4 Minutes of the 4th meeting
Held on October 30 th 2008 at 14:15 pm at FDV
Present: Kaja Smrkolj, Nuša Florjančič, Katja Jekovec, Valentina Žalig, Manja Robič – Zima
Absent: none
Agenda:
1. Checking the completion of tasks
2. Talking about literature
3. Changing the scenario
4. Distribution of the tasks
1 st item: Our tasks were completed in time.
19
2 nd
item: We talked about the articles found and therefore decided on changing the scenario.
3 rd
item: We will not only fight against L’oreal, but against Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company that conducts tests on animals.
4 th item:
Katja Jekovec and Manja Robič will read the scientific articles found already, and write a half-page report on it.
Nuša Florjančič, Valentina Žalig and Kaja Smrkolj will browse for more articles and also write a half-page report on the literature found.
The meeting ended at 14.45 pm.
The next meeting will be arranged through emails.
Minutes taker:
Valentina Žalig
6.3.5. Minutes of the 5 th meeting
Held on November 30 th
2008 at 12 pm at America
Present: Kaja Smrkolj, Nuša Florjančič, Katja Jekovec, Valentina Žalig, Manja Robič – Zima
Absent: none
Agenda:
1.
Checking the completion of tasks
2.
Talking about literature
3.
Distribution of the tasks
1 st
item:
Our tasks were completed in time.
2 nd
item:
We talked about the articles we found for our intermediate report.
3 rd
item:
Katja Jekovec will write about women in organizations
Manja Robič will write about winning a campaign
Nuša Florjančič will show us ethical perspective of animal testing
20
Valentina Žalig will made a report about animal testing in laboratories
Kaja Smrkolj will take the theme of speechwriting
The meeting ended at 13.35 pm.
Minutes taker:
Kaja Smrkolj
6.3.6 Minutes of the 6 th meeting
Held on December 18 th
2008 at 14 pm at FDV
Present: Kaja Smrkolj, Nuša Florjančič, Katja Jekovec, Valentina Žalig, Manja Robič – Zima
Absent: none
Agenda:
1. Checking the completion of tasks
2. Talking about our intermediate reports.
3. Practical part
2.
Next meeting
1 st
item:
Our tasks were completed in time.
2 nd
item:
We talked about intermediate reports and the best ways to campaign.
3 rd
item:
Our practical part:
We will make a video to stop animal testing and play it on TV as a free add. We will spread literature and organize a concert. Exact methods will be discussed at the next meeting
4th item:
We will organize a next meeting through emails.
The meeting ended at 15.35 pm.
Minutes taker:
Kaja Smrkolj
21
6.3.7 Minutes of the 7th meeting
Held on January 13 th
2008 at 14 pm at Net caffe.
Present: Kaja Smrkolj, Nuša Florjančič, Katja Jekovec, Valentina Žalig, Manja Robič – Zima
Absent: none
Agenda:
1. Previous meeting
2.
Distribution of tasks
3.
Next meeting
1 st
item:
On our previous meeting we determined the practical part:
We will make a video to stop animal testing and play it on TV as a free add. We will spread literature and organize a concert. Exact methods will be discussed on the next meeting
2 nd
item:
Katja will organize protest against Live Huntington science.
Valentina will make fliers and Nuša posters.
Manja will take care of the TV add.
Kaja will organize a concert.
3 rd
item:
We will organize a next meeting throug emails.
The meeting ended at 15.05 pm.
Minutes taker:
Kaja Smrkolj
6.3.8 Minutes of the 8th meeting
Held on March 11th 2009 at 12.30 pm during our English lesson (at FDV).
Present: Nuša Florjančič, Katja Jekovec, Kaja Smrkolj, Manja Robič Zima, Valentina Žalig
Absent: None
22
Agenda:
1.
Checking the completition of the pratical part of the project that was discussed in previous meeting
2.
Report on findings
3.
Distribution of tasks for the final report
1st item: Our tasks for the practical part of the project were completed in time. Katja organized an infiltration into Hundtingdon Life Sciences, Valentina and Nuša made fliers and posters, Manja took care of the TV add and Kaja organized a concert. We still have to finish our winning speech.
2nd item: We were discusing the literature and other findings relevant for our final report.
3rd item: In our final report: Nuša will write about PETA and animal testing
Katja will write about PETA's politics and strategy
Valentina will write about Hundingdon Life Science
Kaja will focus on PETA's speeches
Manja will report about our practical part
Kaja, Valentina and Nuša will finish our winning speech. Katja will take care of the introduction and conclusion. Valentina and Katja are responsible for arranging the final version and double checking.
The meeting ended at 13.10 pm
Minutes taker: Katja Jekovec
23
6.4
INTERMEDIATE REPORTS
24
6.5
ASSESMENT FORMS
25
