2
|
Kirk RGW, Ramsden E. Working across species down on the farm: Howard S. Liddell and the development of comparative psychopathology, c. 1923-1962. Hist Philos Life Sci 2018; 40:24. [PMID: 29417236 PMCID: PMC5803279 DOI: 10.1007/s40656-018-0189-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2016] [Accepted: 01/14/2018] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
Seeking a scientific basis for understanding and treating mental illness, and inspired by the work of Ivan Pavlov, American physiologists, psychiatrists and psychologists in the 1920s turned to nonhuman animals. This paper examines how new constructs such as "experimental neurosis" emerged as tools to enable psychiatric comparison across species. From 1923 to 1962, the Cornell "Behavior Farm" was a leading interdisciplinary research center pioneering novel techniques to experimentally study nonhuman psychopathology. Led by the psychobiologist Howard Liddell, work at the Behavior Farm formed part of an ambitious program to develop new preventative and therapeutic techniques and bring psychiatry into closer relations with physiology and medicine. At the heart of Liddell's activities were a range of nonhuman animals, including pigs, sheep, goats and dogs, each serving as a proxy for human patients. We examine how Pavlov's conceptualization of 'experimental neurosis' was used by Liddell to facilitate comparison across species and communication between researchers and clinicians. Our close reading of his experimental system demonstrates how unexpected animal behaviors and emotions were transformed into experimental virtues. However, to successfully translate such behaviors from the animal laboratory into the field of human psychopathology, Liddell increasingly reached beyond, and, in effect, redefined, the Pavlovian method to make it compatible and compliant with an ethological approach to the animal laboratory. We show how the resultant Behavior Farm served as a productive "hybrid" place, containing elements of experiment and observation, laboratory and field. It was through the building of close and more naturalistic relationships with animals over extended periods of time, both normal and pathological, and within and outside of the experimental space, that Liddell could understand, manage, and make useful the myriad behavioral complexities that emerged from the life histories of experimental animals, the researchers who worked with them, and their shared relationships to the wider physical and social environments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert G. W. Kirk
- Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine (CHSTM),
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, CHSTM Simon Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
| | - Edmund Ramsden
- School of History, Queen Mary University of London, Arts 2 Building, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Davies GF, Greenhough BJ, Hobson-West P, Kirk RGW, Applebee K, Bellingan LC, Berdoy M, Buller H, Cassaday HJ, Davies K, Diefenbacher D, Druglitrø T, Escobar MP, Friese C, Herrmann K, Hinterberger A, Jarrett WJ, Jayne K, Johnson AM, Johnson ER, Konold T, Leach MC, Leonelli S, Lewis DI, Lilley EJ, Longridge ER, McLeod CM, Miele M, Nelson NC, Ormandy EH, Pallett H, Poort L, Pound P, Ramsden E, Roe E, Scalway H, Schrader A, Scotton CJ, Scudamore CL, Smith JA, Whitfield L, Wolfensohn S. Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0158791. [PMID: 27428071 PMCID: PMC4948886 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158791] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2016] [Accepted: 06/22/2016] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gail F. Davies
- Department of Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - Beth J Greenhough
- School of Geography and the Environment and Keble College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Pru Hobson-West
- Centre for Applied Bioethics, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
| | - Robert G. W. Kirk
- Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine (CHSTM), Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ken Applebee
- Biological Services, Health Schools, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Manuel Berdoy
- Biomedical Services, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Henry Buller
- Department of Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - Helen J. Cassaday
- School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Keith Davies
- Joint Biological Services, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | | | - Tone Druglitrø
- TIK – Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Carrie Friese
- Department of Sociology, London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kathrin Herrmann
- Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Amy Hinterberger
- Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | | | - Kimberley Jayne
- Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - Adam M. Johnson
- Biological Services Facility (BSF), Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Elizabeth R. Johnson
- Department of Environmental Studies, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York, United States of America
| | - Timm Konold
- Animal Sciences Unit, Animal and Plant Health Agency Weybridge, Addlestone, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew C. Leach
- School of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Sabina Leonelli
- Exeter Centre for the Study of the Life Sciences (Egenis) & Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - David I. Lewis
- School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Elliot J. Lilley
- Research Animals Department, Science Group, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, West Sussex, United Kingdom
| | - Emma R. Longridge
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Swindon, United Kingdom
| | - Carmen M. McLeod
- Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, United Kingdom
| | - Mara Miele
- School of Planning and Geography, College of Art, Humanities and Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Nicole C. Nelson
- Department of the History of Science, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America
| | | | - Helen Pallett
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
| | - Lonneke Poort
- Faculteit of Law, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pandora Pound
- School for Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Edmund Ramsden
- School of History, Queen Mary, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Roe
- Department of Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Helen Scalway
- Honorary Research Associate, Geography Department, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Astrid Schrader
- Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - Chris J. Scotton
- Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | | | - Jane A. Smith
- Faculty of Science, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
| | - Lucy Whitfield
- Named Veterinary Surgeons Group, Royal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Wolfensohn
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Leonelli S, Ankeny RA, Nelson NC, Ramsden E. Making organisms model human behavior: situated models in North-American alcohol research, since 1950. Sci Context 2014; 27:485-509. [PMID: 25233743 PMCID: PMC4274764 DOI: 10.1017/s0269889714000155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
We examine the criteria used to validate the use of nonhuman organisms in North-American alcohol addiction research from the 1950s to the present day. We argue that this field, where the similarities between behaviors in humans and non-humans are particularly difficult to assess, has addressed questions of model validity by transforming the situatedness of non-human organisms into an experimental tool. We demonstrate that model validity does not hinge on the standardization of one type of organism in isolation, as often the case with genetic model organisms. Rather, organisms are viewed as necessarily situated: they cannot be understood as a model for human behavior in isolation from their environmental conditions. Hence the environment itself is standardized as part of the modeling process; and model validity is assessed with reference to the environmental conditions under which organisms are studied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rachel A. Ankeny
- School of History & Politics, University of Adelaide, Napier 423, Adelaide 5005 SA, Australia,
| | - Nicole C. Nelson
- Department of Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Room 207, Montreal QC, H3A 1X1, Canada,
| | - Edmund Ramsden
- Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Simon Building, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ramsden E. Confronting the stigma of eugenics: genetics, demography and the problems of population. Soc Stud Sci 2009; 39:853-884. [PMID: 20506743 DOI: 10.1177/0306312709335406] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
Building upon the work of Thomas Gieryn and Erving Goffman, this paper will explore how the concepts of stigma and boundary work can be usefully applied to history of population science. Having been closely aligned to eugenics in the early 20th century, from the 1930s both demographers and geneticists began to establish a boundary between their own disciplines and eugenic ideology. The eugenics movement responded to this process of stigmatization. Through strategies defined by Goffman as 'disclosure' and 'concealment', stigma was managed, and a limited space for eugenics was retained in science and policy. Yet by the 1960s, a revitalized eugenics movement was bringing leading social and biological scientists together through the study of the genetic demography of characteristics such as intelligence. The success of this programme of 'stigma transformation' resulted from its ability to allow geneticists and demographers to conceive of eugenic improvement in ways that seemed consistent with the ideals of individuality, diversity and liberty. In doing so, it provided them with an alternative, and a challenge, to more radical and controversial programmes to realize an optimal genotype and population. The processes of stigma attribution and management are, however, ongoing, and since the rise of the nature-nurture controversy in the 1970s, the use of eugenics as a 'stigma symbol' has prevailed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edmund Ramsden
- Centre for Medical History, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Exeter, Exter, UK.
| |
Collapse
|