Cultures of care? Animals and science in Britain

C. Friese, Nathalie Nuyts, Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra
{"title":"Cultures of care? Animals and science in Britain","authors":"C. Friese, Nathalie Nuyts, Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.12706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is becoming increasingly common to hear life scientists say that high quality life science research relies upon high quality laboratory animal care. However, the idea that animal care is a crucial part of scientific knowledge production is at odds with previous social science and historical scholarship regarding laboratory animals. How are we to understand this discrepancy? To begin to address this question, this paper seeks to disentangle the values of scientists in identifying animal care as important to the production of high quality scientific research. To do this, we conducted a survey of scientists working in the United Kingdom who use animals in their research. The survey found that being British is associated with thinking that animal care is a crucial part of conducting high quality science. To understand this finding, we draw upon the concept of ‘civic epistemologies’ (Jasanoff 2005; Prainsack 2006) and argue that ‘animals’ and ‘care’ in Britain may converge in taken‐for‐granted assumptions about what constitutes good scientific knowledge. These ideas travel through things like state regulations or the editorial policies of science journals, but do not necessarily carry the embodied civic epistemology of ‘animals’ and ‘science’ from which such modes of regulating laboratory animal welfare comes.","PeriodicalId":365401,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of sociology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract It is becoming increasingly common to hear life scientists say that high quality life science research relies upon high quality laboratory animal care. However, the idea that animal care is a crucial part of scientific knowledge production is at odds with previous social science and historical scholarship regarding laboratory animals. How are we to understand this discrepancy? To begin to address this question, this paper seeks to disentangle the values of scientists in identifying animal care as important to the production of high quality scientific research. To do this, we conducted a survey of scientists working in the United Kingdom who use animals in their research. The survey found that being British is associated with thinking that animal care is a crucial part of conducting high quality science. To understand this finding, we draw upon the concept of ‘civic epistemologies’ (Jasanoff 2005; Prainsack 2006) and argue that ‘animals’ and ‘care’ in Britain may converge in taken‐for‐granted assumptions about what constitutes good scientific knowledge. These ideas travel through things like state regulations or the editorial policies of science journals, but do not necessarily carry the embodied civic epistemology of ‘animals’ and ‘science’ from which such modes of regulating laboratory animal welfare comes.
关怀文化?英国的动物与科学
越来越多的生命科学家说,高质量的生命科学研究依赖于高质量的实验动物护理。然而,动物护理是科学知识生产的关键部分这一观点与之前关于实验动物的社会科学和历史学术不一致。我们如何理解这种差异呢?为了开始解决这个问题,本文试图理清科学家在确定动物护理对高质量科学研究的重要意义方面的价值观。为此,我们对在英国工作的科学家进行了一项调查,他们在研究中使用动物。调查发现,作为英国人,人们认为动物护理是开展高质量科学研究的关键部分。为了理解这一发现,我们借鉴了“公民认识论”的概念(Jasanoff 2005;Prainsack 2006),并认为英国的“动物”和“护理”可能会在关于什么是好的科学知识的想当然的假设中趋于一致。这些想法通过国家法规或科学期刊的编辑政策等方式传播,但不一定带有“动物”和“科学”的具体公民认识论,而这种调节实验动物福利的模式正是来自于这些认识论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信