Suchergebnisse

The use of animals in scientific experiments continues to attract significant controversy, particularly in the UK. This article draws on in-depth interviews with senior laboratory scientists who use animals in their research. A key claim is that animal research is necessary for medical advance. However, this promissory discourse relies on the construction of three boundaries. The first is between humans and non-human animals. The second is between the positive and less positive impacts of Home Office regulation. The third is between the use of animals in medicine versus other domains such as farming. The article analyses these discourses and evaluates the applicability of 'ethical boundary-work' (Wainwright et al., 2006a). I conclude that the concept is a potentially useful device for foregrounding ethics but argue that it carries several dangers for sociologists interested in claim-making in areas of controversy.

Fifty years after the publication of The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique by Russell and Burch, this paper explores the contemporary role of the Three Rs. This is illustrated by reference to a recent social scientific study, which involved a total of 50 in-depth interviews with scientists who use animals and with other stakeholders in the debate. The data analysis shows how the Three Rs are conceptualised in at least three ways: firstly, as an ethical animal, either as a shorthand for a moral imperative, or as a route to managing an ethical dilemma; secondly, as a scientific animal, internal to the scientific method; and finally, as a political animal, with some stakeholders referring to the Three Rs as a way to promote consensus in a controversial domain. Pushing the metaphor a little further, the paper concludes that the Three Rs concept has become a kind of hybrid animal.

Traditionally, sociology has spent much more time exploring relationships between humans, than between humans and other animals. However, this relative neglect is starting to be addressed. For sociologists interested in human identity construction, animals are symbolically important in functioning as a highly complex and ambiguous "other". Theoretical work analyses the blurring of the human-animal boundary as part of wider social shifts to postmodernity, whilst ethnographic research suggests that human and animal identities are not fixed but are constructed through interaction. After reviewing this literature, the second half of the paper concentrates on animals in science and shows how here too, animals (rodents and primates in particular) are symbolically ambiguous. In the laboratory, as in society, humans and animals have unstable identities. New genetic and computer technologies have attracted much sociological attention, and disagreements remain about the extent to which humananimal boundaries are fundamentally challenged. The value of sociologists' own categories has also been challenged, by those who argue that social scientists still persist in ignoring the experiences of animals themselves. This opens up notoriously difficult questions about animal agency. The paper has two main aims: First, to draw links between debates about animals in society and animals in science; and second, to highlight the ways in which sociologists interested in animals may benefit from approaches in Science and Technology Studies (STS).

The use of nonhuman animals as models in research and drug testing is a key route through which contemporary scientific knowledge is certified. Given ethical concerns, regulation of animal research promotes the use of less "sentient" animals. This paper draws on a documentary analysis of legal documents and qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons and others at a commercial laboratory in the UK. Its key claim is that the concept of animal sentience is entangled with a particular imaginary of how the general public or wider society views animals. We call this imaginary societal sentience. Against a backdrop of increasing ethnographic work on care encounters in the laboratory, this concept helps to stress the wider context within which such encounters take place. We conclude that societal sentience has potential purchase beyond the animal research field, in helping to highlight the affective dimension of public imaginaries and their ethical consequences. Researching and critiquing societal sentience, we argue, may ultimately have more impact on the fate of humans and nonhumans in the laboratory than focusing wholly on ethics as situated practice.

The use of animals in scientific research represents an interesting case to consider in the context of the contemporary preoccupation with transparency and openness in science and governance. In the United Kingdom, organisations critical of animal research have long called for more openness. More recently, organisations involved in animal research also seem to be embracing transparency discourses. This article provides a detailed analysis of publically available documents from animal protection groups, the animal research community and government/research funders. Our aim is to explore the similarities and differences in the way transparency is constructed and to identify what more openness is expected to achieve. In contrast to the existing literature, we conclude that the slipperiness of transparency discourses may ultimately have transformative implications for the relationship between science and society and that contemporary openness initiatives might be sowing the seeds for change to the status quo.

The sociology of professions literature would predict that the contemporary state would not allow groups to continue unregulated or unreformed. However, this is indeed the case with the UK veterinary profession, with legislation dating back to 1966. Using an interdisciplinary analysis of published literature and reports, this paper assesses whether wider social, political and ethical dynamics can better explain this intriguing anomaly. We conclude with critical implications for the sociology of the professions. Furthermore, we argue that continuing to ignore the veterinary profession, and animals more generally, in sociological research will result in an impoverished and partial understanding of contemporary healthcare and occupations.

The use of animals in scientific research represents an interesting case to consider in the context of the contemporary preoccupation with transparency and openness in science and governance. In the United Kingdom, organisations critical of animal research have long called for more openness. More recently, organisations involved in animal research also seem to be embracing transparency discourses. This article provides a detailed analysis of publically available documents from animal protection groups, the animal research community and government/research funders. Our aim is to explore the similarities and differences in the way transparency is constructed and to identify what more openness is expected to achieve. In contrast to the existing literature, we conclude that the slipperiness of transparency discourses may ultimately have transformative implications for the relationship between science and society and that contemporary openness initiatives might be sowing the seeds for change to the status quo.

In an ever changing interconnected world, the agriculture and food system faces constant challenges in many forms, such as the impacts of climate change, uncertainty surrounding the use of novel technologies and the emergence of new zoonotic diseases. Alongside these challenges professionals working in the food system are faced with opportunities to improve food production and distribution. As decision-makers attempt to balance these threats and opportunities in order to secure more sustainable production systems, the key question that arises is: What do we envisage as the future for agriculture and food production? With numerous voices advocating different and sometimes conflicting approaches, ranging from organic farming to wider use of GMOs through in vitro meat production, this discussion of the future raises significant ethical questions.The contributions in this book bring together a diverse group of authors who explore a set of themes relating to the ethical dimensions of the agriculture and food futures, including the role of novel technologies, the potential issues raised by the use of biofuels, the ethics of future animal production systems, concepts of global food security, as well as chapters on food governance priorities and educational aspects. It is intended that this volume serves as an interesting collection and acts as a source of stimulation that will contribute to wider debate and reflection on the future of the agriculture and food system

The principles of the 3Rs—replacement, refinement, and reduction—strongly shape discussion of methods for performing more humane animal research and the regulation of this contested area of technoscience. This special issue looks back to the origins of the 3Rs principles through five papers that explore how it is enacted and challenged in practice and that develop critical considerations about its future. Three themes connect the papers in this special issue. These are (1) the multiplicity of roles enacted by those who use and care for animals in research, (2) the distribution of "feelings that matter" across species and spaces of laboratory animal practice, and (3) the growing importance of "cultures of care" in animal research.

Animal research is part of a complex web of relations made up of humans and animals, practices inside and outside the laboratory, formal laws and professional norms, and social imaginaries of the past and future of medicine. Researching Animal Research sets out an innovative approach for understanding and intervening in the social practices that constitute animal research. It proposes the idea of the animal research nexus to draw attention to the connections that make up animal research today and to understand how these elements have become entangled over time. The authors examine moves towards openness, inclusion, and interdisciplinarity in science, and open up questions that move debates beyond polarised pro- and anti-public positions. The book is written as a collaboration and conversation between historians, geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, science and technology studies scholars, and engagement professionals, with commentaries from the arts, social sciences, and animal research sector. Through detailed qualitative analysis of regulation, care, expertise, and public engagement the book offers an unparalleled picture of the changing cultures, practices, and policies of UK animal research. By incorporating critical commentaries and examples of creative practices, it also seeks to animate and potentially transform the animal research nexus that it describes. As the social imaginaries and regulations around animal research continue to change in the UK and beyond, this book is a vital interdisciplinary contribution to the search for new ways to conduct and research animal research today.

Disease prevention and control practices are frequently highlighted as important to ensure the health and welfare of farmed animals, although little is known as to why not many practices are carried out. The aim of this study was to identify the motivators and barriers of dairy cattle farmers towards the use of biosecurity measures on dairy farms using a health psychology approach. Twenty-five farmers on 24 farms in Great Britain (GB) were interviewed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. Results indicated that farmers perceived they had the ability to control what happened on their farms in terms of preventing and controlling disease, and described benefits from being proactive and vigilant. However, barriers were cited in relation to testing inaccuracies, effectiveness and time-efficiency of practices, and disease transmission route (e.g., airborne transmission). Farmers reported they were positively influenced by veterinarians and negatively influenced by the government (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)) and the general public. Decisions to implement practices were influenced by the perceived severity of the disease in question, if disease was diagnosed on the farm already, or was occurring on other farms. Farmers described undertaking a form of personal risk assessment when deciding if practices were worth doing, which did not always involve building in disease specific factors or opinions from veterinarians or other advisors. These results indicate that further guidance about the intricacies of control and prevention principles in relation to specific animal diseases may be required, with an obvious role for veterinarians. There appears to be an opportunity for farm advisors and herd health professionals to further understand farmer beliefs behind certain attitudes and target communication and advice accordingly to further enhance dairy cattle health and welfare.

In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to allow a "virtuous feedback" system for evaluation and quality assurance of animal research, (b) the need for increased public access to information, together with opportunities for stakeholder dialogue about animal research, (c) a greater diversity of views to be represented on decision-making committees to allow for greater balance and (d) a standardized and robust ethical decision-making process that incorporates some sort of societal input. These recommendations encourage aspirations beyond merely imparting information and towards a genuine dialogue that represents a shared agenda surrounding laboratory animal use.

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The issues of openness, transparency and public engagement about animal research have taken focus in several different countries in recent years. This paper gives an account of a two-day-long expert forum that brought together policy experts and academics from Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The aim was to share current governance practices regarding openness and transparency of animal research and to brainstorm ideas for better public engagement. The facilitated conversations were transcribed and analysed to create this report and recommendations that encourage international policy-makers and other stakeholders to engage in genuine dialogue about the use of animals in research. ABSTRACT: In November 2013, a group of international experts in animal research policy (n = 11) gathered in Vancouver, Canada, to discuss openness and accountability in animal research. The primary objective was to bring together participants from various jurisdictions (United States, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom) to share practices regarding the governance of animals used in research, testing and education, with emphasis on the governance process followed, the methods of community engagement, and the balance of openness versus confidentiality. During the forum, participants came to a broad consensus on the need for: (a) evidence-based metrics to allow a "virtuous feedback" system for evaluation and quality assurance of animal research, (b) the need for increased public access to information, together with opportunities for stakeholder dialogue about animal research, (c) a greater diversity of views to be represented on decision-making committees to allow for greater balance and (d) a standardized and robust ethical decision-making process that incorporates some sort of societal input. These recommendations encourage aspirations beyond merely imparting information and towards a genuine dialogue that represents a shared ...

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Animal research conducted outside of the laboratory faces various unique challenges, but has received only limited attention in terms of official guidelines, support, and statistics. To improve understanding, we held a workshop bringing together experts familiar with a variety of nonlaboratory animal research contexts (e.g., wildlife field sites, farms, fisheries, veterinary clinics, zoos). We collectively identified five key areas that we propose require further discussion and attention, which we present in this paper. While the workshop focused on research in the UK, our conclusions may have implications for similar work overseas. ABSTRACT: Research involving animals that occurs outside the laboratory raises an array of unique challenges. With regard to UK legislation, however, it receives only limited attention in terms of official guidelines, support, and statistics, which are unsurprisingly orientated towards the laboratory environment in which the majority of animal research takes place. In September 2019, four social scientists from the Animal Research Nexus program gathered together a group of 13 experts to discuss nonlaboratory research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) of 1986 (mirroring European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU), which is the primary mechanism for regulating animal research in the UK. Such nonlaboratory research under the A(SP)A often occurs at Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs). The primary objective of the workshop was to assemble a diverse group with experience across a variety of POLEs (e.g., wildlife field sites, farms, fisheries, veterinary clinics, zoos) to explore the practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges of conducting research at POLEs. While consensus was not sought, nor reached on every point of discussion, we collectively identified five key areas that we propose require further discussion and attention. These relate to: (1) support and training; (2) ethical review; (3) cultures of care, particularly in ...