Animal Research beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Message

Greenhough

2021

Self Cite

This paper explores how the boundaries of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) are constituted, as illustrative of the rising importance of legal procedures around animal research and how these are continuously being challenged and questioned. Drawing on empirical work in animal research communities, we consider how it is decided whether activities are undertaken for an “experimental or other scientific purpose”. We do this by focusing on “edge cases”, where debates occur about whether to include an activity within A(SP)A's remit. We demonstrate that the boundaries of animal research regulation in the UK are products of past and present decisions, dependencies, and social relationships. Boundaries are therefore not clear-cut and fixed, but rather flexible and changing borderlands . We particularly highlight the roles of: historical precedent; the management of risk, workload, and cost; institutional and professional identities; and research design in constituting A(SP)A's edges. In doing so, we demonstrate the importance of paying attention to how, in practice, animal law requires a careful balance between adhering to legal paragraphs and allowing for discretion. This in turn has real-world implications for what and how science is done, who does it, and how animals are used in its service.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Edge cases in animal research law: Constituting the regulatory borderlands of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Message

Greenhough

2021

Self Cite

“…This qualitative research was not intended to capture views representative of wildlife researchers and regulators, but rather to explore perspectives in-depth and identify key emerging themes. In addition to this qualitative research, the POLEs strand of AnNex involved running a stakeholder workshop on non-laboratory research [ 30 ] and a panel discussion on the regulation of wildlife-focused citizen science [ 31 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But you have a real life, wild situation so you have a kind of a serious reality check’ (interview, 15 January 2019). In field-based animal research specifically, sources of variation may arise from genetically heterogeneous populations (potentially necessitating larger sample sizes than in the laboratory), intraspecific variation in behaviour and physiology, and non-standardized environmental conditions [ 30 , 47 , 48 ].…”

Section: Controllability and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Out of the laboratory, into the field: perspectives on social, ethical and regulatory challenges in UK wildlife research

Greenhough

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

Drawing on insights from qualitative social science research, this paper aims to prompt reflection on social, ethical and regulatory challenges faced by scientists undertaking invasive animal research in the field and propose ways of addressing these challenges to promote good care for animals and environments. In particular, we explore challenges relating to the management of (i) relationships with publics and stakeholders, who may be present at field sites or crucial to research success; (ii) ethical considerations not present in the laboratory, such as the impacts of research on populations and ecosystems; (iii) working under an array of regulations, which may operate in accordance with competing ethical principles or objectives; and (iv) relationships with regulators (especially vets), which may involve disagreements over ethics and expertise, especially because regulators may be more accustomed to overseeing research in the laboratory than the field. We argue that flexibility—at a personal and policy level—and respect for others' expertise emerged as two key ways of negotiating ethical challenges, fostering positive working relationships and promoting good care for individual animals and broader ecosystems. While our analysis focuses on the UK, we propose that many of these lessons are broadly applicable to international contexts. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Measuring physiology in free-living animals (Part II)’.

“…For example, animal testing has been compared favorably to the recruitment of healthy clinical trial participants in the United States (US) given the exploitative treatment of phase I clinical trial participants in some contexts (Fisher and Walker 2019). Discussions have also focused on the difference between the need for informed consent from human research participants compared with the lack of choice given to animals and how "assent" from research animals might be secured (Palmer et al forthcoming;Mancini 2017). Such discussions echo conversations about how to undertake ethical research with children (MRC 2004), and how to ensure that veterinary treatments are in the best interests of animals rather than owners (Ashall, Millar, and Hobson-West 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-producing Human and Animal Experimental Subjects: Exploring the Views of UK COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants on Animal Testing

Vanderslott

Science, Technology, & Human Values

Thomas

et al. 2021

Self Cite

Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: experimental subjects. We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research; (ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects; (iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak; and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science.