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.

Our analysis of 2707 news stories explores the framing of flooding over the past quarter century and the displacement of a once dominant understanding of flooding as an agricultural problem of land drainage by the contemporary concern for its urban impacts, particularly to homes and property. We document dramatic changes in the volume and variety of reporting about flooding since 2000 as the risks of flooding have become more salient, the informal 'Gentlemen's Agreement' between government and private insurers has broken down, and flood management subjected to greater public scrutiny. While the historic reliance on private insurance remains largely unchallenged, we show that other aspects of flood hazard management are now topics of active political debate to which the looming threat of climate change adds both urgency and exculpatory excuses for poor performance. We conclude by reflecting on the significance of the case for grand theories of neoliberalization and governmentality.

This article uses the case of animal welfare to contribute to academic debates about audit and better regulation reforms designed to reduce administrative burdens and increase regulatory effectiveness. Combining desk-based policy document analysis, on-farm field visits, and 31 interviews with livestock farmers and animal health and welfare inspectors in England, it explores farmers' record-keeping practices and the contrasting role regulatory records are understood to play in assurance and good animal husbandry by farmers, regulatory inspectors, and veterinary experts. Farmers experience record-keeping as something they must do to satisfy external regulatory demands rather than anything that good farmers might themselves use in caring for their livestock. As a result they regard paperwork as burdensome and often fail to comply with record-keeping requirements. By contrast, inspectors and animal welfare experts frame record-keeping and analysis as central to good animal husbandry and to a properly anticipatory approach to managing animal health and welfare. Those veterinary-medical presumptions about farm practice inform both the design of specific animal welfare recordkeeping requirements and their self-effacing conceit as being about peering over the farmer's shoulder to audit already existing records. Our findings highlight the dual tendency for the practice of regulatory record-keeping to become decoupled from both the formal requirements and from the quality of care that paperwork is meant to assure. Our analysis extends the critical literature on audit and regulation by drawing on the materialist tradition of science and technology studies to elucidate how this decoupling is shaped by the physical form and materiality of records themselves.

Farmer-led, participatory approaches are being increasingly employed in agricultural research with promising results. This study aimed to understand how a participatory approach based on the Danish Stable Schools could help to achieve practical, farmer-led changes that reduced reliance on antimicrobials in the UK. Five facilitated Farmer Action Groups comprising 30 dairy farms across South West England met on farm at regular intervals between 2016 -2018 and worked collaboratively within their groups to discuss how to reduce antimicrobial use. Qualitative data from group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews were collected and analysed using thematic analysis to explore how the approach helped farmers address and deal with changes to their on-farm practices.Facilitator-guided reviews of antimicrobial use and benchmarking were carried out on each farm to assess any change in usage and help farmers review their practices. The pattern of antimicrobial use changed over the 2 years of the study with 21 participating farms reducing their use of highest priority critically important antibiotics (6 farms were not using any of these critical medicines from the outset).Thirty practical action plans were co-developed by the groups with an average implementation rate of 54.3% within a year. All assessed farms implemented 1 recommendation, and many were still ongoing at the end of the study. Farmers particularly valued the peer-to-peer learning during farm walks.Farmers reported how facilitated discussions and action planning as a peer group had empowered them to change practices. Participants identified knowledge gaps during the project, particularly on highest priority critically important antibiotics where they were not getting information from their veterinarians. The study demonstrated that facilitation has a valuable role to play in participatory approaches beyond moderating discussion; facilitators encouraged knowledge mobilization within the groups and were participants in the research as well. Facilitated, farmer-led, participatory approaches that mobilize different forms of knowledge and encourage peer learning are a promising way of helping farmers to adapt and develop responsible practices.ScholarOne support: (434) 964 4100

No abstract