在动物研究与动物福利之间:分析英国命名兽医的开放性实践。

Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) Pub Date : 2024-09-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2024.42
Renelle McGlacken, Pru Hobson-West
{"title":"在动物研究与动物福利之间:分析英国命名兽医的开放性实践。","authors":"Renelle McGlacken, Pru Hobson-West","doi":"10.1017/awf.2024.42","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of animals as scientific models is argued to be crucial for producing new scientific and medical knowledge and clinical treatments. However, animal research continues to raise socio-ethical concerns. In recent years, there has been a push for openness amongst the life science community, with the aim of increasing the transparency of animal research to wider publics. Yet, how this push for openness is experienced by those responsible for the care and welfare of research animals requires further study. This paper draws upon qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVS) in the UK and explores how they practise openness, avoid openness, and, at times, challenge the way their role is represented within openness agendas. Overall, this social scientific analysis reveals that the current openness agenda has the potential to create tensions for professionals, as they seek to manage regulatory and public imaginaries of the veterinary identity alongside the animal research controversy. The paper concludes by arguing for a culture of dialogue, where openness includes allowing those with responsibilities for animal welfare to express ambivalence or concern about their own role. Finally, the paper calls for sustained academic work on relations between the veterinary profession and wider society, particularly areas that involve contested practices in which care and harm may coincide.</p>","PeriodicalId":520228,"journal":{"name":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428074/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between animal research and animal welfare: Analysing the openness practices of UK Named Veterinary Surgeons.\",\"authors\":\"Renelle McGlacken, Pru Hobson-West\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/awf.2024.42\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of animals as scientific models is argued to be crucial for producing new scientific and medical knowledge and clinical treatments. However, animal research continues to raise socio-ethical concerns. In recent years, there has been a push for openness amongst the life science community, with the aim of increasing the transparency of animal research to wider publics. Yet, how this push for openness is experienced by those responsible for the care and welfare of research animals requires further study. This paper draws upon qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVS) in the UK and explores how they practise openness, avoid openness, and, at times, challenge the way their role is represented within openness agendas. Overall, this social scientific analysis reveals that the current openness agenda has the potential to create tensions for professionals, as they seek to manage regulatory and public imaginaries of the veterinary identity alongside the animal research controversy. The paper concludes by arguing for a culture of dialogue, where openness includes allowing those with responsibilities for animal welfare to express ambivalence or concern about their own role. Finally, the paper calls for sustained academic work on relations between the veterinary profession and wider society, particularly areas that involve contested practices in which care and harm may coincide.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428074/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.42\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal welfare (South Mimms, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.42","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用动物作为科学模型被认为是产生新的科学和医学知识以及临床治疗的关键。然而,动物研究继续引发社会伦理问题。近年来,生命科学界一直在推动开放,目的是向更广泛的公众提高动物研究的透明度。然而,负责研究动物护理和福利的人员是如何体验这种开放性的,这需要进一步研究。本文通过对英国命名兽医(NVS)的定性访谈,探讨了他们如何践行公开性、避免公开性,以及有时如何挑战他们在公开性议程中所扮演的角色。总之,这项社会科学分析表明,当前的开放议程有可能给专业人士造成紧张,因为他们在动物研究争议的同时,还要设法管理监管机构和公众对兽医身份的想象。本文最后主张建立一种对话文化,在这种文化中,开放性包括允许那些对动物福利负有责任的人表达对自身角色的矛盾或担忧。最后,本文呼吁就兽医行业与更广泛的社会之间的关系开展持续的学术研究,尤其是涉及有争议的实践领域,在这些领域中,关爱与伤害可能同时存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between animal research and animal welfare: Analysing the openness practices of UK Named Veterinary Surgeons.

The use of animals as scientific models is argued to be crucial for producing new scientific and medical knowledge and clinical treatments. However, animal research continues to raise socio-ethical concerns. In recent years, there has been a push for openness amongst the life science community, with the aim of increasing the transparency of animal research to wider publics. Yet, how this push for openness is experienced by those responsible for the care and welfare of research animals requires further study. This paper draws upon qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVS) in the UK and explores how they practise openness, avoid openness, and, at times, challenge the way their role is represented within openness agendas. Overall, this social scientific analysis reveals that the current openness agenda has the potential to create tensions for professionals, as they seek to manage regulatory and public imaginaries of the veterinary identity alongside the animal research controversy. The paper concludes by arguing for a culture of dialogue, where openness includes allowing those with responsibilities for animal welfare to express ambivalence or concern about their own role. Finally, the paper calls for sustained academic work on relations between the veterinary profession and wider society, particularly areas that involve contested practices in which care and harm may coincide.

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
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