Amphibious ethics and speculative immersions: laboratory aquariums as a site for developing a more inclusive animal geography.

Beth Greenhough, Emma Roe, Reuben Message
Author Information
  1. Beth Greenhough: School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. ORCID
  2. Emma Roe: School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Highfield, UK. ORCID
  3. Reuben Message: School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. ORCID

Abstract

Human capacity to sense and respond to the suffering of non-Human animals is key to animal care and welfare. Intuitively these modes of relating seem best suited to interactions between humans and warm-blooded mammals who share Human-like facial features and characteristics. Animal geographers and those working in animal welfare have noted the challenges that humans face in learning to care about fishes, and how this leads to welfare guidelines and regulations which are poorly suited to aquatic species. This paper draws on interviews with laboratory aquarists and biomedical researchers to explore how they have learnt to sense and respond to the needs of fishes in the laboratory. We offer two key observations. Firstly, despite significant bodily differences, humans find ways to empathise with fishes. Secondly, whilst observations of bodies and behaviours predominate in laboratory mammal welfare assessments, when working with fishes water quality serves as an important proxy for species health. We conclude that the laboratory aquarium signifies methodological and conceptual limits in contemporary animal geographies. We further argue that these barriers should be understood as cultural, and - as we demonstrate - that there is consequently scope and capacity to reach beyond them by engaging in amphibious ethics and speculative immersions.

Keywords

References

  1. Soc Stud Sci. 2015 Oct;45(5):665-90 [PMID: 26630816]
  2. Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2021 Dec;90:122-130 [PMID: 34624694]
  3. Soc Cult Geogr. 2020 Sep 3;24(1):121-139 [PMID: 36712288]
  4. Anim Front. 2019 Jun 25;9(3):68-77 [PMID: 32002264]
  5. Front Vet Sci. 2022 Apr 27;9:788289 [PMID: 35573409]
  6. J Fish Biol. 2019 Apr;94(4):556-577 [PMID: 30838660]
  7. J Fish Biol. 2009 Dec;75(10):2448-63 [PMID: 20738501]
  8. Altern Lab Anim. 2018 Dec;46(6):309-311 [PMID: 30657327]
  9. Soc Cult Geogr. 2023 Jan 2;24(1):49-66 [PMID: 36655137]
  10. Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2022 Jun;93:192-202 [PMID: 35550930]
  11. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2019 Oct-Dec;22(4):400-410 [PMID: 30320527]
  12. J Fish Biol. 2017 May;90(5):1891-1905 [PMID: 28220489]
  13. Zebrafish. 2021 Aug;18(4):282-292 [PMID: 34227898]
  14. Public Health Rep. 2011 May-Jun;126 Suppl 1:50-7 [PMID: 21563712]
  15. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2016 Jun;57:148-60 [PMID: 26992285]
  16. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jun;231:6-12 [PMID: 29203069]
  17. Animals (Basel). 2019 Dec 03;9(12): [PMID: 31816968]
  18. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020 Dec 21;375(1814):20190458 [PMID: 33131438]

Grants

  1. 205393/Z/16/Z/Wellcome Trust

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0laboratoryanimalwelfarefisheshumansethicscapacitysenserespondkeycaresuitedAnimalworkingspeciesobservationsgeographies-speculativeHumansufferingnon-humananimalsIntuitivelymodesrelatingseembestinteractionswarm-bloodedmammalssharehuman-likefacialfeaturescharacteristicsgeographersnotedchallengesfacelearningleadsguidelinesregulationspoorlyaquaticpaperdrawsinterviewsaquaristsbiomedicalresearchersexplorelearntneedsoffertwoFirstlydespitesignificantbodilydifferencesfindwaysempathiseSecondlywhilstbodiesbehaviourspredominatemammalassessmentswaterqualityservesimportantproxyhealthconcludeaquariumsignifiesmethodologicalconceptuallimitscontemporaryarguebarriersunderstoodculturaldemonstrateconsequentlyscopereachbeyondengagingamphibiousimmersionsAmphibiousimmersions:aquariumssitedevelopinginclusivegeographyempathyfishmarginalisation

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.