scholarly journals (Not) Knowing and (Not) Caring About Animal Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renelle McGlacken
Keyword(s):  
Moral Dilemma ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Correct Knowledge ◽  
Science Society ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Strategic Ignorance

Animal research remains a practice marked by controversy and moral dilemma. However, UK science-society dialogues on the issue are increasingly managed via one-way transmissions of information which construct publics as passive and attribute their concerns to a lack of ‘correct’ knowledge. Challenging such assumptions, this paper questions how and why people actively manage their interactions with animal research through entangled practices of knowing and caring. Based on an analysis of writing from the UK Mass Observation Project, this paper explores difficulties and discomforts associated with animal research which can cause strategic withdrawals from engagements with the topic. In doing so, it extends existing concepts of ‘uncomfortable knowledge’ (Rayner) and ‘strategic ignorance’ (McGoey) to develop novel concepts of ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘strategic’ care. Finally, in examining desires to respond to animal research, I engage with Haraway’s notion of ‘response-ability’ to introduce the concepts of ‘responsive caring’ and ‘responsive knowing’

scholarly journals Clinical impact of high-profile animal-based research reported in the UK national press

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e100039
Author(s):  
Jarrod Bailey ◽  
Michael Balls
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
The Media ◽  
Human Use ◽  
Media Reports ◽  
The Uk

ObjectivesWe evaluated animal-based biomedical ‘breakthroughs’ reported in the UK national press in 1995 (25 years prior to the conclusion of this study). Based on evidence of overspeculative reporting of biomedical research in other areas (eg, press releases and scientific papers), we specifically examined animal research in the media, asking, ‘In a given year, what proportion of animal research “breakthroughs”’ published in the UK national press had translated, more than 20 years later, to approved interventions?’MethodsWe searched the Nexis media database (LexisNexis.com) for animal-based biomedical reports in the UK national press. The only restrictions were that the intervention should be specific, such as a named drug, gene, biomedical pathway, to facilitate follow-up, and that there should be claims of some clinical promise.Main outcome measuresWere any interventions approved for human use? If so, when and by which agency? If not, why, and how far did development proceed? Were any other, directly related interventions approved? Did any of the reports overstate human relevance?ResultsOverspeculation and exaggeration of human relevance was evident in all the articles examined. Of 27 unique published ‘breakthroughs’, only one had clearly resulted in human benefit. Twenty were classified as failures, three were inconclusive and three were partially successful.ConclusionsThe results of animal-based preclinical research studies are commonly overstated in media reports, to prematurely imply often-imminent ‘breakthroughs’ relevant to human medicine.

scholarly journals The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: a replication study

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Bratton ◽  
Rachel C. Adams ◽  
Aimée Challenger ◽  
Jacky Boivin ◽  
Lewis Bott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Press Release ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Human Studies ◽  
Academic Press ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
Health News ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Science News ◽  
Related Science ◽  
The Uk

Background: Exaggerations in health news were previously found to strongly associate with similar exaggerations in press releases. Moreover, such press release exaggerations did not appear to attract more news. Methods: Here we tested the replicability of these findings in a new cohort of news and press releases based on research in UK universities in 2014 and 2015. Press releases and news were compared to their associated peer-reviewed articles to define exaggeration in advice, causal claims and human inference from non-human studies. Results: We found that the association between news and press releases did not replicate for advice exaggeration, while this association did replicate for causal claims and human inference from non-human studies. There was no evidence for higher news uptake for exaggerated press releases, consistent with previous results. Base exaggeration rates were lower for human inference from non-human studies, possibly reflecting the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK. Conclusions: Overall, the picture remains that the strength of news statements is normally associated with the strength of press release statements, and without evidence that exaggerated statements get significantly more news.

Legislative framework for animal research in the UK

In Practice ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 488-496
Author(s):  
Ngaire Dennison ◽  
Anja Petrie
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
The Uk

A New Reductionism for Animal Research

1995 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-331
Author(s):  
Chris Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Animal Experimentation ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Rate Of Decline ◽  
The Uk

This article examines the decline in animal experimentation observed in the last 25 years. It considers possible reasons for this and its significance. However, it also asks whether more could have been achieved, and considers what needs to be done to ensure that the current rate of decline is continued and increased — not just in the UK, but also in Europe and beyond. It is concluded that future reductions in animal experimentation need to be a matter of policy, rather than the product of circumstance. Furthermore, it is concluded that policy objectives alone will be insufficient unless supported by a clear strategy and adequate resources for effective implementation.

scholarly journals What do the societies say?: Biochemical Society Position: The Use of Animals in Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-39
Keyword(s):  
Science Policy ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Science ◽  
Veterinary Research ◽  
Science Group ◽  
The Uk

The Biochemical Society, as part of our continued science policy collaboration, endorses the position of the Society of Biology regarding animal research. We feed into the work of the Society of Biology via a representative on the Animal Science Group. Furthermore, the Biochemical Society has recently become a signatory on the Concordat on openness on the use of animals in research in the UK, so demonstrating our commitment to greater openness and transparency about the use of animals in scientific, medical and veterinary research in the UK (for more information, read our blog post: http://ow.ly/wPhs5).

scholarly journals The problem of priority of principles in bioethics. Can the Kantian classification in perfect and imperfect duties help us?

2021 ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
George Boutlas
Keyword(s):  
Moral Dilemma ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
Common Morality ◽  
Theoretical Justification ◽  
Central Idea ◽  
Imperfect Duties ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Seeking Help ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Moral Objectivism

Principlism has dominated contemporary Anglophone practical ethics often regarded as the most important methodological conception. Young biomedical scientists grow up learning to apply the “four principles”, an approach originally introduced in the USA by Beauchamp & Childress but soon accepted also in the UK with the support of Professor Raanan Gillon. The central idea of the method involves, first identifying the relevant among the four moral principle(s), (beneficence, non maleficence, respect for autonomy and justice) that is (are) connected with a specific moral dilemma. Then, one follows procedures of balancing, specification and deductive application, as a bridge between the moral dilemma and the four principles. Some attention is paid while balancing, to consequentialist considerations, and to other ethically significant concepts as the virtues and the emotions, but only incidentally. What is central in Beauchamp & Childress’s principlism is the adoption of normative insights of common morality, holding the position of a theoretical justification for the methodological reasoning which will determine the solution of a specific moral problem.The main ambition of the four principles approach and its main virtue is the clarity of the method and consequently the ability to become comprehensive and easily applied. There are certain problems though in applying the method. Here, we are going to investigate the problem of relative priority of principles, i.e. which principle overrides the other when two or more of them are in conflict, seeking help by the Kantian division, in perfect and imperfect duties. But we must first answer the question: Is the four principles approach, a method of moral objectivism as Beauchamp & Childress claim, or is it a method of moral relativism, as it is often argued by some of their critics? Only if our answer to the objectivity question is positive, can the main issue of priority be addressed, because an attempt at a determinate ordering wouldn’t mean anything in a relativist frame.

scholarly journals Animal Research beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1868
Author(s):  
Alexandra Palmer ◽  
Beth Greenhough ◽  
Pru Hobson-West ◽  
Reuben Message ◽  
James N. Aegerter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Laboratory Report ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
The Uk

Research involving animals that occurs outside the laboratory raises an array of unique challenges. With regard to UK legislation, however, it receives only limited attention in terms of official guidelines, support, and statistics, which are unsurprisingly orientated towards the laboratory environment in which the majority of animal research takes place. In September 2019, four social scientists from the Animal Research Nexus program gathered together a group of 13 experts to discuss nonlaboratory research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) of 1986 (mirroring European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU), which is the primary mechanism for regulating animal research in the UK. Such nonlaboratory research under the A(SP)A often occurs at Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs). The primary objective of the workshop was to assemble a diverse group with experience across a variety of POLEs (e.g., wildlife field sites, farms, fisheries, veterinary clinics, zoos) to explore the practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges of conducting research at POLEs. While consensus was not sought, nor reached on every point of discussion, we collectively identified five key areas that we propose require further discussion and attention. These relate to: (1) support and training; (2) ethical review; (3) cultures of care, particularly in nonregulated research outside of the laboratory; (4) the setting of boundaries; and (5) statistics and transparency. The workshop generated robust discussion and thereby highlighted the value of focusing on the unique challenges posed by POLEs, and the need for further opportunities for exchanging experiences and sharing best practice relating to research projects outside of the laboratory in the UK and elsewhere.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document