美好的生活?死得痛快?调和动物研究中的关怀与伤害。

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY
Emma Roe, Beth Greenhough
{"title":"美好的生活?死得痛快?调和动物研究中的关怀与伤害。","authors":"Emma Roe,&nbsp;Beth Greenhough","doi":"10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48072,"journal":{"name":"Social & Cultural Geography","volume":"24 1","pages":"49-66"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Roe,&nbsp;Beth Greenhough\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social & Cultural Geography\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"49-66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social & Cultural Geography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social & Cultural Geography","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

实验动物科学代表了人类与动物关系的一种具有挑战性和争议性的形式,因为它的实践涉及故意和无意地伤害和杀害动物。因此,在英国,动物研究已经形成了强烈的伦理关注和监管的焦点,以尽量减少这些动物所经历的痛苦和痛苦,这些动物的活体在其他方面模拟了人类疾病。本文借鉴了2013年至2015年间对英国大学初级实验动物技术人员(at)进行的纵向民族志研究和深入访谈,以及对实验动物福利主要利益相关者的访谈的见解。在我们的分析中,我们研究了实验动物研究中护理工作的四个关键方面:(i)所需的特定技能和敏感性;(ii)以往动物护理经验的作用;(三)制度和情感环境的影响和(四)杀戮经历。我们建议制定不同的护理概念,不仅允许在研究协议下对研究动物造成的伤害程度,而且还允许在护理和杀死动物的过程中对人工智能造成的伤害。最后,我们主张在地理学关于关怀和人与动物关系的辩论中,更清楚地阐明关怀和危害的共存。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research.

Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
16.00%
发文量
99
×
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