a b s t r a c tImproving animal welfare is an important part of the development of the agricultural industry, particularly at a time when intensification and the encroachment of factory-style production systems is making the maintenance of human-animal relations increasingly difficult. Animal science deals with the issue of improving stockmanship by focusing on the relationships between attitudes and behaviour, under the premise that improved attitudes will lead to improved behaviour. From an analysis of 42 interviews with owners, sharemilkers and workers on dairy farms in New Zealand we present a different view, seeing behaviour instead as part of a self-reinforcing culture in which animals, humans and the physical structure all contribute to the development of farm specific ways of doing and being. We further suggest that changing one stockperson's attitude alone is insufficient to ensure a change in the culture as other actors e including animals and non-human actors e reinforce any existing culture that has developed, making both attitudinal and behavioural change difficult. We conclude by discussing the key importance of designing farm systems and structures that promote positive interactions between animals and humans and suggest that this, rather than simply promoting knowledge and attitudinal change, is likely to be the most effective way of maintaining stockmanship in the face of an industrialising agriculture.

Based on data from a survey of biological scientists at 125 American universities, this article explores how the commercialization of the university affects the problems academic scientists pursue and argues that this reorientation of scientific agendas results in a shift from science in the public interest to science for private goods. Drawing on perspectives from Bourdieu on how actors employ strategic practices toward the accumulation of social capital and acquire dispositional and perceptional tendencies that in turn recondition social structures, the commercialization of the university is construed not as something that ''happens to,'' but rather something that ''happens through'' academic scientists. The specific shape and direction of the commercialization of the university is therefore influenced by how scientists incorporate the new resources and social relations of commercialization into their scientific practice and how their creative engagement with shifting structural conditions remakes the culture of academic science.

The proliferation of markets and market-based policy instruments in environmental governance is premised on the establishment of metrological regimes and the practices of measurement, commensuration, and commodification that underlie these regimes. This paper develops the concept of metrology and examines its role in the function and dysfunction of emissions trading markets. The concept invites us to question the social, political, and scientific conditions under which agreements about measurement and commensuration do or do not occur, and the consequences or effects of particular metrological systems. The paper provides three examples of how measurement, commensuration, and commodification have framed the design and function of emissions markets in order to illustrate the effects of particular metrologies on market rule. Contrary to claims that measurement serves as a means to 'cool' political disputes, this paper argues that because markets inevitably have distributional effects, the metrological systems which frame market design are frequently a site of focused political contestation. Seeing measurement and commensuration as inherently political can also provide insight into ongoing disagreements about the appropriate metrics and responsibilities for mitigating climate change and the form and function of markets more generally.

No abstract

No abstract