Kenneth Shapiro, PhD: 25 Years, 7 Questions

1. Were you involved in animal law/policy/advocacy in 1995?

Yes, I have been involved in animal advocacy since 1981.

2. If so, what were you doing?

As Executive Director of predecessor organization of Animals and Society Institute, I was involved in administering a small nonprofit, editing Society and Animals, giving workshops on the violence connection and psychological interventions related to animal abuse, writing a book on science-based arguments against the use of animal models of human psychology (Animal Models of Human Psychology). I also served as the president of the board of Animal Rights Network (publisher of Animals’ Agenda).

3. What were the major issues in 1995?

For PSYeta/ASI, the major issues were the development of the field of human-animal studies, the critique of animal research, and the relation between human violence and animal abuse. More broadly, the animal protection movement had shifted its focus from laboratory to farmed animals, a move partly credited to Henry Spira. Companion animals still continued as a focus. Held in Washington DC in 1995, the second March for the Animals was relatively sparsely attended compared to the initial March in 1990. This can be read as  a shift from the predominance of peta’s on the street approach to the HSUS’s more mainstream approach to change through legislation, the courts, and education.  

4. What are the positive developments in last 25 years in animal law, policy or welfare?

Significant gains have been made in the development of scholarship in support of animal advocacy. The field of human-animal studies showed impressive growth in production of scholarship, including the establishment of animal welfare science as a subfield, the rise of animal law and of several humanities disciplines in the field (in addition to the earlier seminal writings in philosophy). The institutional presence of the field lagged behind but was beginning to result in courses and a few minors. On the legislative front, the strategy of using state-based initiatives and referenda was supplanting efforts on the federal level.  Vegetarianism was beginning to get more attention as a way forward in dealing with industrial animal agriculture as more veggie products became available and with increased recognition of the contribution of CAFOs to environmental degradation.

5. What are the negatives?

There was tension, not always constructive, between animal welfare and animal rights/liberation philosophies and forms of advocacy. The numbers of animals being exploited worldwide was increasing as less developed countries moved to more meat-based diets. The development of genetic engineering was buttressing the animal research enterprise as animals could be altered to mimic specific human pathologies.

6. What did we learn in the last 25 years?

We learned:

• a great deal about the ethology and natural history of animals and forms of human-animal relationships,
• the importance of politicizing the movement,
• the importance of providing evidence-based research in arguing our case, the related emergence of “effective activism,”
• that addressing the economics of our issue was as critical as developing arguments and as providing education on the issues,
• that technological advances were also critical in making gains, particularly in the areas of food production and research methods.

7. Looking toward the future, what are your predictions for

• 5 years (2025)

The movement will become more establishmentarian, pursuing economic- and political-based solutions to animal exploitation.

• 10 years (2030)

In-vitro assays of food and cosmetic ingredients and drugs will replace whole-animal testing.

• 25 years (2045)

Plant-based protein and cultured meat will be established as alternatives to industrial agriculture for a significant minority of the world’s human population. 

The legal status of animals will begin to undercut the present paradigm in which they are limited to property.