When ‘cultures of care’ meet: entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK

Gorman, Richard; Davies, Gail

doi:10.1080/14649365.2020.1814850

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This account also connects to the academic literatures increasingly engaging with the scientific, policy, and spatial practices of laboratory animal research. Scholars in the humanities and social sciences are increasingly trying to scale up accounts of how responsibility and care operate in laboratory animal research from discussions of corporeal encounters based on co-presence ( Greenhough & Roe, 2011 ), to the development and maintenance of institutional cultures of care ( Gorman & Davies, 2020 ), through to national frameworks ( Friese et al., 2019 ) and international exchange ( Druglitrø & Kirk, 2014 ). Drawing things together at international scales is complex but important.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating the ‘culture wars’ in laboratory animal research: national constitutions and global competition

Davies

2021

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasingly global scope of biomedical research and testing using animals is generating disagreement over the best way to regulate laboratory animal science and care. Despite many common aims, the practices through which political and epistemic authority are allocated in the regulations around animal research varies internationally, coming together in what can be identified as different national constitutions. Tensions between these periodically erupt within the laboratory animal research community as a ‘cultural war’ between those favouring centralised control and those advocating local flexibility. Drawing on long-term engagement with key events and actors in these policy debates, I propose these national differences in the constitution of animal research can be understood through the intersection of two key variables: i) the location of institutional responsibility to permit research projects and ii) the distribution of epistemic authority to shape research practices. These variables are used to explain the development of different policy frameworks in the UK, Europe, and the USA, and identify where there is convergence and divergence in practice. Concluding, I suggest the way these approaches are combined and enacted in different countries reflects different national civic epistemologies, which are coming into conflict in the increasingly global networks of laboratory animal science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating the ‘culture wars’ in laboratory animal research: national constitutions and global competition

Davies

2021

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As social scientists have observed, laboratories tend to be spaces inhabited only by researchers and others involved in research support and animal husbandry; by contrast, fields are potentially used by multiple groups [2,4]. Thus, unlike researchers working in laboratory settings (though see [32] for an exception of patient tours of laboratories), those working with free-ranging or agricultural animals may need to negotiate relationships with members of the public and stakeholders, who may also be present at field sites [33].…”

Section: Relationships With Publics and Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Out of the laboratory, into the field: perspectives on social, ethical and regulatory challenges in UK wildlife research

Palmer

Greenhough

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on insights from qualitative social science research, this paper aims to prompt reflection on social, ethical and regulatory challenges faced by scientists undertaking invasive animal research in the field and propose ways of addressing these challenges to promote good care for animals and environments. In particular, we explore challenges relating to the management of (i) relationships with publics and stakeholders, who may be present at field sites or crucial to research success; (ii) ethical considerations not present in the laboratory, such as the impacts of research on populations and ecosystems; (iii) working under an array of regulations, which may operate in accordance with competing ethical principles or objectives; and (iv) relationships with regulators (especially vets), which may involve disagreements over ethics and expertise, especially because regulators may be more accustomed to overseeing research in the laboratory than the field. We argue that flexibility—at a personal and policy level—and respect for others' expertise emerged as two key ways of negotiating ethical challenges, fostering positive working relationships and promoting good care for individual animals and broader ecosystems. While our analysis focuses on the UK, we propose that many of these lessons are broadly applicable to international contexts. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Measuring physiology in free-living animals (Part II)’.

show abstract

“…Our own work has traced how people who are patients or carers involved in PPI manage their complex positions when reviewing and monitoring projects involving animal research. 60 They may draw on personal or family health experiences, speak for patient communities, ask questions about animal care, or seek to offer public assurance around the regulation of animal research and welfare. 60 The lines between public and personal interests become increasingly blurred.…”

Section: The Emergent Publics Of Genome Editingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of genome editing to animal research connects to a wide variety of policy concerns and public conversations. We suggest focusing narrowly on public opinion of genome editing is to overlook the range of positions from which people are brought into relationships with animal research through these technologies. In this paper, we explore three key roles that publics are playing in the development of genome editing techniques applied to animals in biomedical research. First, publics are positioned by surveys and focus groups as stakeholders with opinions that matter to the development of research technologies. Learning lessons from controversies over genetically modified food in Europe, these methods are used to identify problems in science–society relations that need to be managed. Second, people are recruited into research projects through participating in biobanks and providing data, where their contributions are encouraged by appeals to the public good and maintained by public confidence. Thirdly, patients are increasingly taking positions within research governance, as lay reviewers on funding panels, where their expertise helps align research priorities and practices with public expectations of research. These plural publics do not easily aggregate into a simple or singular public opinion on genome editing. We conclude by suggesting more attention is needed to the multiple roles that different publics expect – and are expected – to play in the future development of genomic technologies.

show abstract

When ‘cultures of care’ meet: entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK

Abstract: View related articlesView Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles When 'cultures of care' meet: entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK

Cited by 19 publications

References 40 publications

Locating the ‘culture wars’ in laboratory animal research: national constitutions and global competition

Locating the ‘culture wars’ in laboratory animal research: national constitutions and global competition

Out of the laboratory, into the field: perspectives on social, ethical and regulatory challenges in UK wildlife research

The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About