Project: Course Project: Publicity Campaign Proposal

More than four decades ago, the Ad Council partnered with Keep America Beautiful to create a powerful visual image that dramatized how litter and other forms of pollution were hurting the environment, and how every individual has the responsibility to help protect it. The ad, which featured Native American actor Iron Eyes Cody, “The Crying Indian,” first aired on Earth Day in 1971. Created by ad agency Marstellar, Inc., the campaign used the line, “People Start Pollution. People can stop it.” The ad became one of the most memorable and successful campaigns in advertising history and was named one of the top 100 advertising campaigns of the 20th Century by Ad Age Magazine.
—Ad Council website (2015)

Social change requires the committed actions of the many, not the few. This week, you create a cohesive publicity campaign proposal designed to maximize public exposure and support for your social change issue.

To prepare for this Project:

• Review the Topic Exploration and Analysis you developed in Week 2.
• Review the Literature Review you developed in Week 3.
• Consider insights gained about the effectiveness of publicity campaigns from this week’s Learning Resources and Discussion.
• With the potential solutions and steps you identified in the Literature Review in mind, as well as other relevant information you gained through your research, consider how you might most effectively reach out to the public for support on this issue.
• What message or messages would you craft? To whom would they be addressed?
• How would you deliver your message(s) to most effectively reach the intended audience(s)? Consider the pros and cons of all forms of information dissemination. These include the Internet (websites, blogs, social media sites), print ads, TV and radio ads, PowerPoint presentations, community posters and pamphlets, billboards, speaker presentations, community gatherings, and phone campaigns.

In a 2- page paper, describe your proposed overall approach and process for publicizing your social issue. Address the following, making sure to support your statements with references to this week’s required readings:

• Briefly describe the social issue and what you would like to achieve through this publicity campaign.
• To whom would you reach out? Why? (Note: Think creatively about the support you would most like to have and most need.)
• How would you reach out? What methods would you use to inform and inspire? Why?
• Are there any groups or individuals with whom you would most like to connect? Why?
• What messages would you incorporate into your campaign? Why do you think this messaging would resonate with potential interested individuals or groups? (Note: Messaging can be different for different intended audiences.)
• In launching this campaign, what would be the first step you would take and why?
• In a conclusion to this essay, explain why you believe that this approach will be successful. Be sure to align your rationale to the social issue.
• Be sure to include an introduction, body, conclusion, and reference page, using APA format to cite each of your sources in the body of your paper.

Running head: SOCIAL PROBLEMS

1

SOCIAL PROBLEMS
5

Animal Rights

Linda Dotson

Walden University

Animal Rights

Currently, the world is faced with a myriad of social issues that do not only affect human beings but also animals. Today, animals are faced with cruelty from the very people who are supposed to protect them. Researchers in the medical field are using animals for experimentation while hunters and poachers continue to hunt and kill animals causing the extinction of some species. This necessitated the birth and animal welfare movement to create scientific awareness of the suffering of animals (Sinclair & Philips, 2018). Just like other social justice movements, the current animal liberation movements focus on eliminating institutional and systematic oppression of animals. Several animals spend a significant part of their life standing on concrete floors while others are confined in crowded places with total disregard for their welfare. Animals too have feelings just like human beings. This paper provides a comprehensive view of animal rights as a social problem.

Problem Statement

Despite animals having rights just like human beings, it is unfortunate that medical research continues to use animals for experimentation ignoring the fact that doing so subjects animals to immense suffering especially when parts of their bodies are mutilated for experimentation. It is imperative that animal testing is put to a halt to avoid causing harm to different species of animals.

Symptoms of Animal Experimentation

Every year, thousands of animals are taken to laboratories for experimentation. This causes them to be tortured and killed under harsh circumstances because researchers want to experience amusements in medical breakthroughs they make. There are several symptoms associated with animal experimentation. For example, some animal parts are often unnoticed on animals being experimented. Some animals appear dizzy and immobile due to chemicals used to immobilize or disable them. Elsewhere, animals in the laboratories do not only suffer from the pain they experience. They equally suffer from stress caused by living in harsh conditions.

Existing Conflicts about Animal Experimentation

In animal testing or experimentation, ethical issues are often contested. There is often a contest on whether it is right to inflict avoidable harm or pain on members of a particular species in order to secure the benefit of other species (Garner, Lyons & Roberts, 2016). On the other hand, medical researchers assert that they only use animals as the last option because they cannot experiment using human beings. Regardless of the benefits of animal experimentation in the medical field that include a better quality of life, Animal experimentation is a social problem that has forced animal rights crusaders to consider it unnecessary and cruel to animals.

Potential Ethical Dilemma

Animal experimentation or testing is surrounded by several ethical dilemmas. One of the ethical dilemmas is experimenting with animals to develop pharmaceutical products to save lives and improve the quality of life while destroying different species of animals. An experiment that improves the quality of life of human beings while destroying animals should be reconsidered.

How the Social Problem has Developed

Animal testing as a social problem has developed from simple experimentation using animals to industrial experimentation where thousands of species are taken to laboratories and used for medical research with total disregard of their welfare (Garner et al., 2016). The desire to develop potential forms of treatment is among the chief reasons behind animal testing.

Why it is Important to Investigate the Social Issue

Several reasons make it necessary to investigate animal testing. For example, the need to protect animals from cruelty makes it interesting to study the issue. Each year, thousands of animals are pushed into laboratories for medical research and several of them do not make it. Some are left with permanent scars on their bodies.

References

Garner, R., Lyons, D., & Roberts, A. (2016). How to protect animal welfare. CASJ Policy Research Briefing.

Sinclair, M., & Philips, C. J. C. (2018). International Animal protection society leadership: The right people for the right issues. MPDI, 8(89), doi: 10.3390/ani8060089.

Running head: SOCIAL PROBLEMS

1

SOCIAL PROBLEMS
5

Animal Rights

Linda Dotson

Walden University

Animal Rights

The world is faced with several social problems that do not only affect human beings but animals too. One of the biggest problems facing animals that qualify as a social problem is animal testing. This practice has elicited a divisive debate with one side of the debate arguing that it is unethical to met animals with the cruelty of killing them or injuring them for experiments. This is because animals too have feelings and therefore need to be respected (Newkirk, 2020). On the other hand, the proponents of animal testing argue that without doing so, the advancements made in the medical field could not have been realized. As a result of this debate, several solutions have been proposed to save the lives of animals. This paper presents a literature review on the proposed solutions, their feasibility, conflicts involved, interests, values, and rights of all stakeholders, and ethical dilemmas involved.

Literature Review

To find solutions to the social problem under consideration, several researchers have conducted fruitful studies and proposed a number of lasting solutions. Having noted the concerns raised regarding the use of animals for experimentation, Newkirk researched the best alternatives to the problem and came up with different approaches that are relevant to human health. Newkirk proposed conducting research using human volunteers using a method known as micro-dosing to provide vital information on the safety of drugs and how they metabolize in human beings ahead of being put on a large scale trial. This method replaces animal tests and is equally useful in screening out drug compounds that may not work in humans.

Apart from the human volunteer, Newkirk proposed the use of human patient simulators. Computerized human-patient simulators that breathe, talk, and can also die have the ability to teach physicians about pharmacology and physiology even better than inflicting insurmountable pain on animals. According to Newkirk, human-patient simulators mimic illnesses and injuries to give appropriate biological responses that inform physicians about the best medical intervention.

Researching with human volunteers may not be feasible unless people are fully informed that using them for research does not expose them to other risks. Elsewhere, Walker and Fisher argue that there needs to be parallel ethics and work to consider the structural features of volunteers and animals. On the other hand, the human-patient simulator may not be feasible because of a lack of technological advancement in every part of the globe. Additionally, physicians need to be trained to understand how to use simulators.

There are different and conflicting perspectives regarding the proposed solutions. For instance, it is argued that doctors intentionally infect healthy people to research various diseases and their treatment. This raises ethical concerns regarding the beneficial effect of research with human volunteers. As such, Walker and Fisher suggest limiting research with human volunteers on ethical grounds and to avoid the risk of harm. Elsewhere, the human-patient simulators have not attracted plenty of conflicts and almost all healthcare practitioners agree with the practice. This is because no human being or animals are affected and the simulators are able to give accurate feedback that dictates the appropriate medical intervention.

Different interests of different stakeholders must be considered. For example, in the research contacted by Walker and Fisher (2019), biomedical ethics advocates argue that doctors intentionally infect healthy people to use them for research. As such, the principle of beneficence must be addressed to minimize the risk of harm and maximize the potential societal benefit from the research. On the other hand, the human volunteers are motivated by financial benefits and therefore argue that the practice should be carried out with less restriction. Elsewhere, human rights advocates have welcome both approaches because they are geared towards eradicating the use of animals in experiments. On the other hand, the physicians have welcomed the human-patient simulator because it improves the basic knowledge as one of the essential attributes needed to professionally competent.

The proposed solutions are not immune to ethical dilemmas. For instance, biomedical ethics advocates argue that it is absurd to infect healthy human beings to research them to develop appropriate medical interventions to improve society. Any research that subjects some people to harm with the view of improving medical practice violates the ethical principles. Elsewhere, simulation is designed to enhance clinical skills to ensure that patients are not endangered. However, its influence on the competency of nurses regarding their ethical values in practice remains unknown.

References

Newkirk, I. G. (2020). Animals are not ours: To experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way. PeTA. Retrieved from

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Walker, R. L., & Fisher, J. A. (2019). Advancing Ethics and Policy for Healthy‐Volunteer Research through a Model‐Organism Framework. Ethics and Human Research, 41(1), pp 4-14,

doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500001

WAL_SOCI4080B_05_B_EN-CC.mp4

WAL_SOCI4080B_04_A_EN-CC.mp4