A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research
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.
Care, animal geographies, animal research, killing/death, science and technology studies
49-66
Roe, Emma
f7579e4e-3721-4046-a2d4-d6395f61c675
Greenhough, Beth
94cba39c-71da-418b-abda-bf3daae4c2c4
15 January 2023
Roe, Emma
f7579e4e-3721-4046-a2d4-d6395f61c675
Greenhough, Beth
94cba39c-71da-418b-abda-bf3daae4c2c4
Roe, Emma and Greenhough, Beth
(2023)
A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research.
Social & Cultural Geography, 24 (1), , [24:1].
(doi:10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977).
Abstract
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.
Text
Roe-and-Greenhough-SCG-Care-FINAL-VERSION
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
A good life A good death Reconciling care and harm in animal research
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 17 January 2021
e-pub ahead of print date: 23 March 2021
Published date: 15 January 2023
Additional Information:
Funding Information:
We would like to acknowledge the support and contributions from the laboratory animal technology community, including all those who participated in interviews, tours and our participant observation work. Our sincere thanks go to our two anonymous referees and to Beth’s fellow special issue editors and in particular to Elaine Ho at SCG; we greatly appreciated all their thoughtful direction in helping us develop this paper. Thanks also go to audiences at the Dept of Anthrozoology at University of Exeter, 2015; London Medical Sociology Group 2017, BMS Oxford 2018, LASA 2017, IAT 2017, RGS-IBG 2017 ‘Culture of Care session’, ISHPSSB 2019 Oslo, Animal Research Unbound 2019. This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant numbers WT100899MA and 205393/Z/16/Z). For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Due to the confidential and sensitive nature of the research area, and in accordance with conventions at the time data was collected, we do not have permission to make interview transcripts and other data from this research (WT100899MA) publically available.
Keywords:
Care, animal geographies, animal research, killing/death, science and technology studies
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 446525
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/446525
ISSN: 1464-9365
PURE UUID: 90d4d3fb-9ec7-4bb3-bd37-4d9cba240500
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 12 Feb 2021 17:31
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:10
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Beth Greenhough
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
