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

Pru Hobson-West, Ashley Davies
Author Information
  1. Pru Hobson-West: Centre for Applied Bioethics, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK. ORCID
  2. Ashley Davies: Centre for Applied Bioethics, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK.

Abstract

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 . 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Sci Technol Human Values. 2018 Jul;43(4):622-648 [PMID: 30008492]
  2. Soc Stud Sci. 1988 May;18(2):265-89 [PMID: 11645862]
  3. PLoS One. 2016 Jul 18;11(7):e0158791 [PMID: 27428071]
  4. Sci Technol Human Values. 2018 Jul;43(4):723-741 [PMID: 30008495]
  5. Altern Lab Anim. 2009 Dec;37 Suppl 2:95-9 [PMID: 20105021]
  6. Theor Med Bioeth. 2006;27(4):305-31 [PMID: 16937022]
  7. Public Underst Sci. 2012 Apr;21(3):354-68 [PMID: 23045886]
  8. Nature. 2006 Dec 14;444(7121):811 [PMID: 17167451]
  9. Public Underst Sci. 2014 Jan;23(1):16-20 [PMID: 24434706]
  10. Sociology. 2012 Aug;46(4):649-663 [PMID: 27708461]
  11. Anim Cogn. 2015 Jan;18(1):1-17 [PMID: 24942105]
  12. Sci Technol Human Values. 2018 Jul;43(4):694-722 [PMID: 30008494]
  13. J Med Ethics. 2010 Jan;36(1):46-9 [PMID: 20026693]
  14. Sociol Health Illn. 2006 Sep;28(6):732-48 [PMID: 17184415]
  15. Soc Anim. 1995;3(1):1-21 [PMID: 11653207]
  16. Sociol Health Illn. 2008 Jan;30(1):35-54 [PMID: 18254832]
  17. Altern Lab Anim. 2012 Dec;40(6):P18-9 [PMID: 23398340]
  18. Sci Technol Human Values. 2001 Winter;26(1):3-22 [PMID: 15362238]
  19. Public Underst Sci. 2016 Oct;25(7):791-806 [PMID: 26009149]
  20. Animals (Basel). 2014 Dec 03;4(4):729-41 [PMID: 26479009]

Grants

  1. /Wellcome Trust
  2. 205393/Z/16/Z/Wellcome Trust

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0researchanimalsentienceanimalslaboratorypublicusekeyethicalconceptimaginarywiderencounterssocietalimaginariesethicsnonhumanmodelsdrugtestingroutecontemporaryscientificknowledgecertifiedGivenconcernsregulationpromotesless"sentient"paperdrawsdocumentaryanalysislegaldocumentsqualitativeinterviewsNamedVeterinarySurgeonsotherscommercialUKclaimentangledparticulargeneralsocietyviewscallbackdropincreasingethnographicworkcarehelpsstresscontextwithintakeplaceconcludepotentialpurchasebeyondfieldhelpinghighlightaffectivedimensionconsequencesResearchingcritiquingarguemayultimatelyimpactfatehumansnonhumansfocusingwhollysituatedpracticeSocietalSentience:ConstructionsPublicAnimalResearchPolicyPracticeveterinarians

Similar Articles

Cited By