caught in the middle

Animal research, ethical boundary-work, and the geographies of veterinary expertise

The veterinary profession has been relatively understudied in social science, though recent work has highlighted the geographic dimensions of veterinary expertise. This paper draws on in-depth qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVSs) working in UK animal research to demonstrate how and why they distinguish between ethical aspects of veterinary work in the spaces of the laboratory and general clinical practice. The paper mobilises the sociological concept of ethical boundary-work to help understand how animal research - often assumed to represent a contentious ethical space - is constructed positively as a space for veterinary work. Findings suggest first, that NVSs differentiate between laboratory veterinary-work and clinical work based on the scale at which veterinary expertise functions in the provision of healthcare to animals. Second, NVSs highlight a geography of veterinary authority in which veterinary expertise is felt to be more successfully applied in the laboratory compared with the clinic, where professional expertise competes with other sources of information and clients' finances and behaviours. Third, NVSs articulate a geography of consistency in which veterinary care in the laboratory is claimed to be more consistent between animals, as opposed to in the clinic, where animal experience may be influenced by individual owner characteristics. Overall, we show how through engaging in this kind of ethical boundary-work NVSs are not only presenting a form of scientific practice as 'ethical', they are also constructing a professional topology of veterinary practice and expertise. Finally, the paper argues for greater attentiveness to veterinary geographies beyond the more routine spaces of veterinary practice.

Two Worlds in One: What 'Counts' as Animal Advocacy for Veterinarians Working in UK Animal Research?

The concept of advocacy is of increasing importance to the veterinary profession internationally. However, there are concerns around the ambiguity and complexity of acting as an advocate in practice. This paper explores what 'animal advocacy' involves for veterinarians working in the domain of animal research, where they are responsible for advising on health and welfare. In focusing on the identity of veterinarians working in an arena of particular contestation, this paper provides empirical insights into how veterinarians themselves perform their role as an 'animal advocate'. Analysing interview data with 33 UK 'Named Veterinary Surgeons', this paper therefore examines what 'counts' as animal advocacy for veterinarians, considering the way their role as animal advocate is performed. Focusing on the themes of 'mitigating suffering', 'speaking for', and 'driving change' as three central ways in which veterinarians working in animal research facilities act as animal advocates, we draw out some of the complexities for veterinarians working in areas where animal care and harm coexist. Finally, we conclude by calling for further empirical exploration of animal advocacy in other veterinary domains and for more critical attention to the wider social systems which produce the need for such advocacy.

Societal Sentience: Constructions of the Public in Animal Research Policy and Practice

The use of nonhuman animals as models in research and drug testing is a key route through which contemporary scientific knowledge is certified. Given ethical concerns, regulation of animal research promotes the use of less "sentient" animals. This paper draws on a documentary analysis of legal documents and qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons and others at a commercial laboratory in the UK. Its key claim is that the concept of animal sentience is entangled with a particular imaginary of how the general public or wider society views animals. We call this imaginary societal sentience. Against a backdrop of increasing ethnographic work on care encounters in the laboratory, this concept helps to stress the wider context within which such encounters take place. We conclude that societal sentience has potential purchase beyond the animal research field, in helping to highlight the affective dimension of public imaginaries and their ethical consequences. Researching and critiquing societal sentience, we argue, may ultimately have more impact on the fate of humans and nonhumans in the laboratory than focusing wholly on ethics as situated practice.

Refinement: promoting the three Rs in practice

Refinement of scientific procedures carried out on protected animals is an iterative process, which begins with a critical evaluation of practice. The process continues with objective assessment of the impact of the procedures, identification of areas for improvement, selection and implementation of an improvement strategy and evaluation of the results to determine whether there has been the desired effect, completing the refinement loop and resulting in the perpetuation of good practice. Refinements may be science-driven (those which facilitate getting high-quality results) or welfare-driven or may encompass both groups, but whatever the driver, refinements almost always result in benefits to both welfare and science. Refinements can be implemented in all aspects of animal use: improved methodology in invasive techniques, housing and husbandry, and even statistical analyses can all benefit animal welfare and scientific quality. If refinement is not actively sought, outdated and unnecessarily invasive techniques may not be replaced by better methods as they become available, and thus outdated information is passed down to the next generation, causing perpetuation of old-fashioned methods. This leads to a spiral of ignorance, leading ultimately to poor practice, poor animal welfare and poor-quality scientific data. Refinement is a legal and ethical requirement, yet refinements may not always be implemented. There are numerous obstacles to the implementation of refinement, which may be real or perceived. Either way, in order to take refinement forward, it is important to coordinate the approach to refinement, validate the science behind refinement, ensure there is adequate education and training in new techniques, improve liaison between users and make sure there is feedback on suitability of refinements for use. Overall, refinement requires a coordinated ongoing process of critical appraisal of practice and active scrutiny of resources for likely improvements. In the busy world of biomedical research, this process needs help. In order to develop these themes further, a workshop was held at the LASA Winter Meeting 2006, UK, to assist in identifying potential obstacles to refinement, and then to explore and develop strategies for overcoming these obstacles in key areas. A range of strategies appropriate to different circumstances was identified, which should facilitate the implementation of refinements.