Sociology
The entanglement of species thinking (speciesism) and racism is enduring. How exactly these prejudices are entangled in each other, however, is determined in part by the different ways that the categories of species and of ‘race’ are conceived of in science. This chapter traces changing conceptions of ‘race’ and of species over several centuries, with the aim of better understanding the traffic between them. Significant here will be the bifurcation of the concepts of ‘race’ and of species post-population thinking – and especially their subsequently differing time scales. Failure to appreciate these temporal differences can lead to misplaced political optimism, as this chapter illustrates by way of a critical analysis of two contemporary readings of Darwin’s famous ‘parasol anecdote’. Further, through an analysis of the Michael Vick dog fighting controversy, this chapter teases out how the implications of the co-racialisation of pit bulls and of humans differs for dogs and for humans, given that dogs are first gathered under the sign of species. This discussion is also relevant to one of the key arguments of the book as a whole, which is that species thinking erases the significance of particularity: in practice, the particularity of the individual animal. One question that arises, therefore, is how the individual animal might be ‘recovered’ – if not in science, then in politics. The chapter proposes that there is no route ‘back’ to individuality via species. The racialisation of dogs, however, offers one potential point of entry to individuation and/or individualisation.
Chapter 3 addresses some of the ways that species and behaviours come to be connected to each other in science. This is important, for dogs’ species story would not necessarily, in itself, bear so very heavily on dogs, were it not that this story often shapes contemporary scientific understandings of what dogs need and want, and how they do and should behave. Chapter 3 explores three foundational traditions in the study of animals: classical ethology, behaviourism and ‘anecdotalism’, which, although associated with Charles Darwin and Georges Romanes, continue to trouble contemporary canine science and, in particular, contemporary canine ethology. These traditions, in many regards, could not be more different from each other. This chapter addresses, for example, some of the postwar political conflicts between classical ethology and behaviourism, and how they were informed by their differing conceptions of the species–behaviour relation. It also explores why anecdotalism appears to be so different from almost every other scientific school of thinking. Yet this is precisely the point of Chapter 3: despite the rifts that apparently separate their theories, methodologies and politics, these traditions – including ‘even’ anecdotalism – are united in at least one thing, which is their reliance on species as the final explanation of animal behaviour.
There are key books on the subject of laboratory animals that represent key turning points in the intertwined social processes involved in using, regulating, contesting, and understanding animals in science and society. The work of the Animal Research Nexus Programme in this book articulates another turning point in the mapping of the social space of laboratory animals, which includes research regarding that social space. Nexus, or connection, analytically instantiates social processes that forego polarised political conflict, and thus opens up new ways to both conduct and research animal research. This afterword considers some directions that this conceptualisation of research animals opens up and makes possible for the future.
Since 2018, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has mandated the reporting of research animals that fall into the category ‘bred, but not used’. These are by-products from breeding specific genetically altered animals, bred to maintain a live ‘tick-over’ research animal colony or research-ready but not used in experiments. The qualitative research in this chapter found that within the animal facility these animals were described as surplus or waste. This terminology demonstrates the variable feelings and meanings circulating around these animals. The animal care technicians, facility managers, Named Veterinary Surgeons, and scientific researchers, however, differentiated between ‘avoidable waste’ and ‘unavoidable waste’, aiming to minimise avoidable waste and drive changes in practice. To meet this goal, there is a growing interest in outsourcing breeding, which avoids localised killing of waste animals and is perceived to reduce costs for research facilities. However, this practice can be in conflict with an industry culture that expects research animals to be available on demand. Furthermore, outsourcing can result in these surplus animals, and the emotional burdens on staff responsible for culling them, becoming less visible to end-users, thereby perpetuating the problem. The chapter concludes by recommending more regulatory attention to practices leading to avoidable ‘bred, but not used’, and further transparency around where and how these animals are created. Making these changes would align with the guiding principle of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement), and help to extend ‘cultures of care’ beyond individual institutions to encompass entire supply chains.
Previous experiments with the form of citizen juries and ethical review panels suggest that the barrier to public engagement with complex and controversial issues is not the amount or quality of information available, but the lack of an accessible framework in which to explore choices and responses to information. Responding to this insight, Vector was developed – an immersive experience which uses elements of performance, game, and integrated technology to engage the public in issues around animal research. Vector took the concept of the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) as a way of playing with the context in which information is offered and exploring how ‘informal’ and ‘local’ knowledge are transferred into or challenged by ‘formal’ and ‘universal knowledge’. Adopting the view of an audience participant to examine Vector, the chapter asks how can the AWERB act as an author of fiction? Drawing on theories of affect in theatre and examining the performance roles and power held by performers and audiences, this chapter attempts to move beyond thinking in terms of the public towards the transformative concept of the participant.
This chapter offers an overview and three-part response to the first section of the book, which looks at the changing relationships between regulation and animal research. Opening the conversation is a commentary from Liz Tyson, an academic and animal advocate currently working within the animal protection and conservation not-for-profit sector. She offers an insightful critical analysis identifying the limitations of our work on the ‘Animal Research Nexus’ contained within this volume, which has been imposed by choices made in structuring research activity. Tyson invites reflection on how the structuring of research includes some perspectives and excludes others, prompting readers to consider not only what had been said but what had been left unsaid, and why. Amy Hinterberger, academic and social scientist, similarly highlights how the Animal Research Nexus productively focuses attention on the institutional lives of animals but in doing so may leave little space for considering other approaches to animal research. In closing, Robert G. W. Kirk, academic and historian, considers the Animal Research Nexus as a historically constituted object, reflecting how past trends may inform future change whilse inviting speculation on how the lay public may be better engaged with the ever-evolving relationship of regulation to animal research.
This chapter offers an overview and three-part response to the second section of the book, which focuses on cultures of care in animal research as an object of both professional and academic interest. The chapter presents three separate commentaries, two from invited respondents to this section of the book, and one from the section editor. The first commentary is from Jordi L. Tremoleda and Angela Kerton, who both work as professionals in the field of animal research and have a keen interest in nurturing a culture of care for both animals and the humans who work with them. The second commentary is from Eva Giraud, an academic who specialises in animal studies, media, and activism, who offers a more critical take, exploring the incommensurable ethical positions occupied by animal welfarists working within animal research and animal activists operating outside it. The section editor’s closing commentary then draws these different perspectives into a wider conversation around the tensions and complexities that emerge when different ideas, forms, and spaces of care are juxtaposed.
This chapter offers an overview and three-part response to the third section of the book, which focuses on experts and looks at how various forms of expertise are performed in the animal research nexus. The chapter features commentaries, including two from invited respondents to this section of the book, and one from the section editor. The first commentary is by Larry Carbone, a US-based veterinarian with a particular interest in the welfare of animals in laboratories. This commentary focuses on the complexity involved in the doing of contemporary science, and the importance of ethnographic and collaborative methods in the social scientific study of animal research. The second commentary is from Ngaire Dennison, a UK-based veterinarian with previous experience as a government inspector of animal research facilities. Drawing on the book section on expertise, one of Dennison’s key contributions is to stress the need for more complete and more careful conversations on animal research. The section editor’s closing commentary then looks across all book chapters and commentaries, with the aim of foregrounding key themes. This final piece by Hobson-West identifies the importance of seeing expertise as a spatial activity, and a form of action that can be studied. However, this contribution also argues for the importance of reflexivity from those claiming their own forms of academic expertise.
This chapter offers an overview and three-part response to the final section of the book, which focuses on experimentations with openness and engagement with animal research. The chapter presents three separate commentaries, two from invited respondents to this section of the book, and one from the section editor. The first commentary is from Bella Lear, a social researcher and science communicator who works to drive and support change in the animal research sector. Her commentary charts changes to the openness agendas in animal research from the perspective of someone closely involved with those changes. She reflects on how the three chapters create new points of entry to discussions about animal research that can add dynamism to debates. The second commentary is from Louise Mackenzie, an artist who experiments with the imaginative possibilities of extending animal welfare and care to all manner of organisms. This commentary brings artistic practice into conversation with the three chapters, arguing that honesty and truth is at stake in how openness is performed, for whom and for what purpose. The section editor’s closing commentary looks across all book chapters and commentaries, with the aim of identifying key themes. In this final piece, Emma Roe identifies how the contributors have created activities where participants lead in how, where, and when they engage with animal research, rather than being presented with a preformatted vision or version of animal research. These build to reveal the contours of the animal research industry’s contemporary culture of both openness and closedness.
This chapter asks how can a culture of care be defined, what does it look like in institutions where it is functioning well, and what factors enable or constrain its development? Drawing on over eight years of qualitative research in laboratory animal facilities, it explores the different ways in which care is understood and practised through the breeding, husbandry, and use of laboratory animals. The chapter begins by placing the ‘culture of care’ in context, looking at its emergence in the field of laboratory animal research. It then uses evidence from research to outline different forms and expressions of care, the factors that enable or constrain its development, and their perceived implications for animal and staff wellbeing. It concludes by recommending that institutions, managers, and regulators seeking to promote a ‘culture of care’ need to be mindful of different, sometimes conflicting, understandings of what constitutes good care, and the roles played by (a) infrastructure, (b) governance, and (c) human–human and human–animal relations, in facilitating and/or restricting care-full practice.