LSE, Sociology.
Civics Consultancy.
Br J Sociol. 2019 Dec;70(5):2042-2069. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12706. Epub 2019 Nov 4.
It is becoming increasingly common to hear life scientists say that high quality life science research relies upon high quality laboratory animal care. However, the idea that animal care is a crucial part of scientific knowledge production is at odds with previous social science and historical scholarship regarding laboratory animals. How are we to understand this discrepancy? To begin to address this question, this paper seeks to disentangle the values of scientists in identifying animal care as important to the production of high quality scientific research. To do this, we conducted a survey of scientists working in the United Kingdom who use animals in their research. The survey found that being British is associated with thinking that animal care is a crucial part of conducting high quality science. To understand this finding, we draw upon the concept of 'civic epistemologies' (Jasanoff 2005; Prainsack 2006) and argue that 'animals' and 'care' in Britain may converge in taken-for-granted assumptions about what constitutes good scientific knowledge. These ideas travel through things like state regulations or the editorial policies of science journals, but do not necessarily carry the embodied civic epistemology of 'animals' and 'science' from which such modes of regulating laboratory animal welfare comes.
越来越多的生命科学家表示,高质量的生命科学研究依赖于高质量的实验动物护理。然而,认为动物护理是科学知识生产的关键部分的观点与之前关于实验动物的社会科学和历史学术观点相悖。我们该如何理解这种差异?为了开始解决这个问题,本文试图厘清科学家们将动物护理视为高质量科研产出的重要因素的价值观。为此,我们对在英国从事动物研究的科学家进行了一项调查。调查发现,英国人认为动物护理是进行高质量科学研究的关键部分。为了理解这一发现,我们借鉴了“公民认识论”的概念(Jasanoff 2005;Prainsack 2006),并认为英国的“动物”和“护理”可能会在关于什么构成良好科学知识的既定假设中交汇。这些想法通过国家法规或科学期刊的编辑政策等方式传播,但不一定承载着这种调节实验动物福利的公民认识论模式所具有的“动物”和“科学”的具体内涵。