Secrets and lies: “selective openness” in the apparatus of animal experimentation

Holmberg, Tora; Ideland, Malin

doi:10.1177/0963662510372584

Cited by 38 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This limited conceptualisation of social sciences leads us to our second conclusion: that the field of food security research is only partially or selectively open to social science disciplines. By doing so we acknowledge the argument that Holmberg and Ideland () made in the context of their investigation into the opening up of animal science research to the influence and expertise of those beyond science. In our analysis selective openness refers to the openness to particular – mostly behavioural – forms of social sciences that are likely to be useful in serving the needs of certain types of natural science and may also be of immediate relevance to policy‐makers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Openness to Social Science Knowledges? The Politics of Disciplinary Collaboration within the Field of UK Food Security Research

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores a form of knowledge politics played out within and between universities and research institutes as sites of certified disciplinary expertise in the agro‐food domain. It investigates the openness of this domain to the expertise of the agro‐food social sciences particularly when challenge‐led research programmes require collaboration across disciplines. A case study is provided by the multi‐discipline field of food security research in the UK involving interviews with key stakeholders. The article examines how this research field’s disciplinary diversity is understood by key stakeholders. Interview data are analysed thematically in terms of the current and potential contribution of social science disciplines, the different ways in which stakeholders imagine social science research, and whether social scientists themselves recognise and align with these different imaginaries. The article concludes by arguing that the field of food security research in the UK is open only selectively to agro‐food social science knowledges and that this is likely to have negative implications for addressing the challenges of food security. Further, if the promise of collaborative working between disciplines in agro‐food research fields is to be made good then the emphasis of agro‐food knowledge politics scholarship and the governance of knowledge‐making needs to change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Openness to Social Science Knowledges? The Politics of Disciplinary Collaboration within the Field of UK Food Security Research

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This relation deserves specific commentary. Regulatory practice that we have described shows us that institutions involved in the legal review procedure are designed in such a way that decision-making builds on scientific knowledge focusing on safety requirements (Holmberg and Ideland, 2012), but that, at the same time, these institutions (officially) include room for discussion about ethical desirability. As soon as new technologies give rise to moral concerns and public debate, either ethics committees are installed and institutionalized, or a strategy for handling ethics is designed.…”

Section: The Role Of Experts and Knowledge In Regulatory Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stretching and Challenging the Boundaries of Law: Varieties of Knowledge in Biotechnologies Regulation

Faulkner

Poort

2017

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper addresses the question of adaptation of existing regulatory frameworks in the face of innovation in biotechnologies, and specifically the roles played in this by various expert knowledge practices. We identify two overlapping ideal types of adaptation, first the stretching and maintenance of a pre-existing legal framework, and second a breaking of existing classifications and establishment of a novel regime. We approach this issue by focusing on varieties of regulatory knowledge which, contributing to and parting of political legitimacy, in principle enable the making of legally binding decisions about risks and benefits of technologies. We base the discussion around two case studies, one of animal biotechnology ethical regulation, the other of 'advanced therapy' medicinal product regulation, both in the context of European Union frameworks. Specifically we explore the knowledge configurations constituting expert committees and other institutional formations of expert regulatory knowledge in their political context. We show that where sectoral and moral boundaries are challenged, different modes of regulatory knowledge beyond scientific forms-legal, procedural, moral, economic and industrial-can shape regulatory innovations either by maintenance of regimes through commensuration and stretching, or through differentiation and separation creating new frameworks. We conclude that establishing an essential techno-scientific difference between pre-existing and novel technologies does not in itself require new regulatory structures, and that the regulatory strategy that is followed will be determined by a combination of different forms of knowledge.

show abstract

“…Rather, the boundary for ethical reflection in an AEC is set through what is already common practice. 51 In yet another study initiated by a responsible governmental authority, Dahlborn found a variety of discussion themes and decision methods as well as differences in how the assessment procedure (e.g. handling of insufficient information and discussion of alternative methods) was completed.…”

Section: Ideals and Realities In Assessing Research On Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case for integrity: gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From January 2013, a new EU Directive 63/2010/EU requires that research using animals must undergo a harm-benefit analysis, which takes ethical considerations into account (Art. 38 (2) d) -a so-called 'project authorization ' (Art. 36). A competent authority in each member state has to ensure that no project is carried out without such a project validation process, but often delegates the actual assessment to an animal ethics committee (AEC) or its equivalent. The core task of the AEC is to formulate a justifiable balance between the animals' suffering caused by research and the potential human benefit. AECs traditionally focus on animal welfare issues, but according to the new directive other public concerns must also be taken into account. Taking the new EU Directive as a point of departure, the central aim of this paper is to discuss the evaluation process in relation to animal welfare and animal ethics through the concept of animal integrity. A further aim is to elaborate on possible improvements to project evaluation by considering animal integrity. We argue that concepts like animal integrity are often left out of project authorization processes within AECs, because animal ethics is often interpreted narrowly to include only certain aspects of animal welfare. Firstly, we describe the task of an AEC and discuss what has typically been regarded as ethically relevant in the assessment process. Secondly, we categorize four notions of integrity found in the literature to show the complexity of the concept and furthermore to indicate its strengths. Thirdly, we discuss how certain interpretations of integrity can be included in AEC assessments to encapsulate wider ethical concerns and, perhaps even increase the democratic legitimacy of AECs.

show abstract

Secrets and lies: “selective openness” in the apparatus of animal experimentation

Cited by 38 publications

References 23 publications

Openness to Social Science Knowledges? The Politics of Disciplinary Collaboration within the Field of UK Food Security Research

Openness to Social Science Knowledges? The Politics of Disciplinary Collaboration within the Field of UK Food Security Research

Stretching and Challenging the Boundaries of Law: Varieties of Knowledge in Biotechnologies Regulation

A case for integrity: gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About