To invite scientists from other university branches to cooperate on common animal issues and the actual animal debate, and to back terms from this side such as ‘inherent value’, ‘dignity’, ‘living being’ and ‘co-creation’. Such scientists include veterinarians (in the fields of animal breeding, housing, transport, and slaughtering), biologists (in designing and practicing animal experiments), ethicists and theologians.
Idea behind this:
Closer cooperation with other fields that are taught at universities with sometimes excellent public funding brings new thinking to the other branches. The other scientists are motivated to reframe their thinking and behavior by being faced with the animal legal issues. This is done either within the existing legislation or as a new basic principle. Law students and doctorates get inside knowledge on how animal issues are treated. They also see things from the ‘animal user’s’ point of view and can estimate the political potential of their ideas.
As legislation is a procedure of balancing major public interest, the work on positions of agreement and disagreement may be very important for the parties involved for later public issues. It helps animal lobbyists to react more easily to the arguments of the ‘animal user’s’. It can also, on a short-term basis, lead to common ground agreements against main and obvious animal mistreatment.