https://drive.google.

com/file/d/1bkd2qDGNFaQWsM8IQVmrnKfvNgu8RdTr/view

1. Student A, how did the group decide to include Student B’s perspective/lens/conclusions into

the overall presentation?

(Ling,Yaquub, Ronan, Mars) - We decided to include Samson’s work through a bit of a stepback

on the overall theme of our issue. Despite the zoological industry having many tangible factors such as

my economic benefits of zoos or Mars’ scientific effects of captivity of animals, we felt like using Sam’s

analysis of Regan’s research as a foundation to our argument due to the fact that animal captivity is

actually rooted in ethical and moral dilemmas. In this vein, zoos violate animals’ right to freedom, so

their confinement conditions need to be critically analyzed in order to minimize this issue.

(Yaquub, Ronan, Mars, Sam) - We decided to include Ling’s social perspective because zoos are

social places. Ling talks about how education is an important part of the zoo's mission. Eduardo

Fernandez proves that zoo signage is an integral part in engaging zoo visitors, allowing us to conclude

that our solution regarding zoos should have more interactive educational experiences such as signage

within their sites in order to further engage visitors and educate them on animal lifestyles. This would

make zoos not only more economically effective, but allow them to have even greater social benefits.

(Ling, Yaquub, Mars, Sam) - We decided to use Ronan’s work to share specific ways that zoos

support national economies. For instance, his source, the AZA, shares how the zoological industry

supplies over 198,000 jobs in the United States alone, which we used to support why we need to keep

zoos. We also used his research to discuss the different ways that zoos derive their profits, therefore

supporting these national economies. We believe that this was very helpful in expressing the value of

zoos, and how detrimental their collapse or abolition would be for human stakeholders.

(Ling, Yaquub, Ronan, Sam) - We decided to include Mars’ work because it is very important to

understand a factual and scientific basis to all the arguments being made, in order to properly support

each claim that we have. For example, she uses Clubb and Mason in her IRR to support that lots of

animals do poorly in captivity, which provides a factual scientific basis for our whole solution that
animals are in fact suffering in captivity. We think her lens was very important in order to understand an

animal perspective as well, in order to fully evaluate zoos properly.

(Ling, Ronan, Mars, Sam) - We decided to include Yaquub’s work as a context that was needed

in order to give the broad historical background that our research wouldn’t otherwise include. Geoffrey

Hosey’s insight on the history of animal sanctuaries as well as their rise and fall in the twentieth century

helped to build a foundation of general zoos throughout time, and the research created a deeper

understanding on the formation of zoos over the years. His perspective was also helpful in giving us

further insight on how animals have been treated in zoos and what we have historically tried before.

2. Student A, give one specific way that your thinking changed as a result of learning about

Student B’s findings.

(Ling,Yaquub, Ronan, Mars) - Samson’s philosophical research changed my thinking of how

zoos must operate on a moral level. For instance, he cites Peter Singer to assert the mental and physical

suffering that animals experience in zoos using a utilitarian framework. Although the implications of their

suffering contrasted with humans’ derived pleasure using the utilitarian equation is impossible to exactly

conclude, the recognition of the constant stress and alienation and fear which animals face in zoos

necessitates at the very least very serious alterations to the institution of zoos. These findings made my

perspective on zoos less favorable, as they caused me to find fewer and fewer reasons to leave zoos alone,

and allow them to perpetuate as they currently exist.

(Yaquub, Ronan, Mars, Sam) - Ling’s findings changed my perspective on how visitors

experience zoos. In her IRR she talks about how the Philadelphia Zoo used tubes for animals to walk

around above humans so visitors see animals wherever they go. Her perspective helped me understand the

importance of architecture in zoos in relation to its effects on how visitors get to see animals, which made

me more confident in our solution, and helped me understand how we should be changing zoos for the

better, for both people and animals.

 (Ling, Yaquub, Mars, Sam) - Ronan’s findings gave a clear, tangible perspective to an otherwise

intangible issue. His discussion of the regional and national impacts of the Little Rock Zoo highlighted

the economic importance of the zoo industry, which clearly showed how simply abolishing said industry

is not a viable solution. His analysis of the AZA’s conservation efforts also pointed out the dependency

that conservation has upon the zoological industry, and the abolition of said industry would have

catastrophic implications for conservation efforts. Prior to this research, I interpreted zoos as a very clear-

cut evil that had no excuse to continue, but after reading Ronan’s IRR, I realized this issue is not quite

that simple.

(Ling, Yaquub, Ronan, Sam) - After reading what Mars wrote, I felt like I understood the

experience of zoo animals better. Her entire IRR goes in depth about very specific health and behavioral

problems animals have in zoos, such as Aislinn and Renner, who researched polar bears when housed

together in captivity, which gave an example of statistics backing up poor care in enclosed zoos, making

my opinion of zoos fall further after this project. Her perspective opened my eyes to poor and neglectful

care in zoos, ignorance, and scientific data showing poor zoological care, which helped me understand

why zoos are changing so much in our solution.

(Ling, Ronan, Mars, Sam) - Yaquub’s findings about the history of zoological institutions

increased my understanding of the current and past incarnations of zoos. In his IRR, he discusses animal

sanctuaries, more specifically, the actions of Carl Hagenbeck and David Hancocks that would culminate

in the modern zoo seen today. His research on the physical and mental health of the animals, such as

animal suicides, led me to realize that as they are now, zoos cannot be allowed to exist. However his IRR

also showed that most animals cannot go back to the wild because of reasons such as not being taught

how to survive along with the practices of separating children from their parents, and incest.

3. Reflecting on your colleagues’ work, which one had the greatest impact on your overall

understanding of the problem your group identified?

 (Ling, Yaquub, Ronan, Sam) - Mars’ work I believe had the greatest impact on my outlook of the

issue, because the health and safety of the animals is obviously a large bulk of the problem. Her research

set a fundamental basis for understanding my issue, since the entire point of zoos is keeping animals, and

she talks about how we are keeping animals poorly. For example, her source by Yang and others helped

me understand the severity of mistreatment of animals in zoos, which helped me see one side on the issue

of whether or not zoos should continue as they are.

(Mars) - I believe that Ronan’s research had the greatest impact on how I view on this topic due

to the fact that before, and during my own research, I never thought about the statistics of zoological

institutions. The issue of the economic benefits of keeping zoos, such as bringing $16.7 billion in annual

revenue around the world and supporting over 198,000 jobs in the U.S. according to the AZA, is proof

along with donations that go to conservation efforts that there are valid reasons to the continuation of

zoos. My research was all very clear cut about the mistreatment of animals in zoos and why they

shouldn’t be allowed to exist but Ronan’s research showed me that the practize of zoos cannot simply be

abolished.

4. What is an example of a compelling argument from one of your peer’s individual reports that

you decided to exclude from your team presentation and why?

(Ling, Yaquub, Mars, Sam) - We decided to exclude Ronan’s economic work regarding

RENCTAS animal trafficking trade in Brazil. This is because although the issue of animal trafficking is

important because it brings in 20 billion dollars total, making 15% of global trade, we felt that we should

focus on the animals conditions in zoos rather than then the ways in which they get to zoos, in order to try

and focus in more on creating an effective solution for our specific problem.

(Ronan) - Yaquub included a really compelling argument in his IRR sourcing Madison Coleman

which discussed management issues in zoos. As Coleman states, oftentimes animals deemed “surplus” by

management are euthanized in order to increase the efficiency of zoos and their operations. This is of

course horrific and disturbing that animals in zoos are so often viewed as expendable commodities, and
Yaquub expresses Coleman’s sentiments on this. Despite this argument being quite compelling, we

ultimately decided to exclude this from our team presentation because we focussed our TMP less on

solving internal management issues in zoos and more on solving their physical infrastructural issues. If

we had decided to focus on internal management issues within zoos, though, this argument of Yaquub’s

would have been very useful.

5. What is a way in which your team’s resolution makes you think differently about your own

individual research?

(Mars) - The team research made me really think about the issue from other perspectives. With

just my own research, I saw no reason why zoos should be allowed to continue with such poor treatment

of animals, but after our team came together to reach a solution, I realized this issue is much more

complicated, like with Ronan’s financial and profit argument, and Ling’s social one. After synthesizing

all the views together, I realized I had more to consider than just my scientific one that only thought about

animals.

(Ling) - The team's resolution of expanding animal welfare throughout zoos made me reflect

more on how animals are affected by zoos. My social research was primarily focused on how visitors

experience zoos and the social benefits and consequences regarding them. The solution however was

directed towards better welfare for animals in zoos through bigger more naturalistic enclosures, better

diets, and more research for animals in zoos. So when I reevaluate my own research, I have to realize that

zoos are not just about how the visitor is affected, but the animals too.

(Ronan) - The team's resolution of expanding animal welfare throughout zoos made me reflect

more on how much fault is really on zoos. Despite the industry taking leaps and bounds to separate itself

from the horrors of its past, there is still a lot of smoke and mirrors around how animals in modern zoos

are treated. While doing my research, it was very easy to get caught up in large figures, such as tax

revenue, number of jobs supported, or species saved through captive breeding programs. These huge
numbers gave me the false perception that zoos were in existence to do real good in the world, despite the

fact that the vast majority of zoos worldwide exist exclusively to profit at the expense of animals.

(Yaquub) - My teams’s resolution definitely made me think differently about my own individual

research report. While I was doing my research, the sources showed me the abuse animals were going

through and the history of the construction of zoos but I never thought about how the world would be

affected without zoos. When we came together I realized that zoos are protecting 900 species being

protected from extinction according to the AZA and the education that zoos are providing the next

generation demonstrate that despite the abysmal care the animals are given, it is getting better and can

improve into the future.

(Sam) - Our team’s research made me think differently about my individual research in many

ways. When conducting my research, the most compelling philosophical arguments I encountered

opposed the existence of virtually all zoos. I found this in the utilitarian philosophy of Peter Singer’s

Animal Rights and Tom Regan’s Are Zoos Morally Defensible?, an animal rights argument resembling a

refined virtue ethics. However, after working with my team to find a solution to the debated issue of zoos

and their existence, and being exposed to other lenses (economic, social, historical, and scientific), I

adopted a more nuanced, compromising stance on the issue. I realized that there are ways in which zoos

can greatly improve conditions for their animals while still continuing operation, allowing their economic

and social benefits to persist. In this way, our solution of maintaining zoos (under substantially improved

conditions) has made me think differently about my own research.

6. Describe an argument from one of your peer’s individual reports that made you think

differently about your team’s solution or conclusion?

(Yaquub, Ronan, Mars, Sam) - Ling represented an argument in her Individual Research Report

from the CEO of the Philadelphia Zoo, Vikram Dewan, and it really made me think differently about our

team’s solution. One of the biggest issues our team was running in our conclusion was this limbo of

animal rights and human experiences in zoos. It felt like the more we increased animal welfare, the less
enjoyable and educational the zoo experience was for viewers, and vice versa. At first we though our

solution would just be a happy medium between these two, that is, until we began to utilize this argument

of Vikram Dewan. He discusses an architectural design, the tube design, present in his zoos. These see-

through tubes stretch all across the zoo, and are connected to a wide variety of exhibits. This design not

only solves the issue of cramped, settled enclosures for animals, allowing them more autonomy over their

movement, but it allows humans to have more immersive, up-close experiences with the animals as well.

Dewan’s argument, which Ling presented in her (Individual Research) Report, made us really rethink our

team solution, and realize that we didn’t have to compromise animal rights and human experiences; we

could come up with solutions which prioritized both.

(Ling) - Ronan used the argument in his IRR that despite the flaws that the zoological and animal

captivity industry has, it is not a lost cause. This gave me great hope on the future of our solution, and

gave real context to the ability for this edited version of zoos to succeed. In his IRR, he specifically

discusses the Buenos Aires Ecopark, and how their combination of conservation and economics

skyrocketed public support, and kept the economic and educational assets that were so integral to the

institution.

7. If you had another team member, what other perspectives or limitations could they have

researched that would have made a useful contribution to the project?

(Ling, Yaquub, Ronan, Mars, Sam) - If we had another team member we would add the political

perspective. When researching this they could’ve found solutions to our limitations by figuring out how

to implement the new zoo policies we proposed. They could pass laws that required all zoos to meet all

AZA welfare requirements. Establishing the government's current stance on zoos could also help us shape

our solution into a goal that could be obtained by governmental action. We could find out about the

current ways the government contributes to zoos and how we can alter that to better animal welfare in

zoos, which would all strengthen our proposed solution.