Animal research, ethical boundary‐work, and the geographies of veterinary expertise

Abstract

The veterinary profession has been relatively understudied in social science, though recent work has highlighted the geographic dimensions of veterinary expertise. This paper draws on in-depth qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVSs) working in UK animal research to demonstrate how and why they distinguish between ethical aspects of veterinary work in the spaces of the laboratory and general clinical practice. The paper mobilises the sociological concept of ethical boundary-work to help understand how animal research -often assumed to represent a contentious ethical space -is constructed positively as a space for veterinary work. Findings suggest first, that NVSs differentiate between laboratory veterinary-work and clinical work based on the scale at which veterinary expertise functions in the provision of healthcare to animals. Second, NVSs highlight a geography of veterinary authority in which veterinary expertise is felt to be more successfully applied in the laboratory compared with the clinic, where professional expertise competes with other sources of information and clients' finances and behaviours. Third, NVSs articulate a geography of consistency in which veterinary care in the laboratory is claimed to be more consistent between animals, as opposed to in the clinic, where animal experience may be influenced by individual owner characteristics.Overall, we show how through engaging in this kind of ethical boundary-work NVSs are not only presenting a form of scientific practice as 'ethical', they are also constructing a professional topology of veterinary practice and expertise.Finally, the paper argues for greater attentiveness to veterinary geographies beyond the more routine spaces of veterinary practice.

Two Worlds in One: What ‘Counts’ as Animal Advocacy for Veterinarians Working in UK Animal Research?

“…Future research might therefore focus more directly on how Named Veterinarians and other professionals who advocate for the welfare of research animals construct their animal patients, the meanings they make of their health and illness, what these involve, and where they begin and end. Further work could also explore where this differs internationally (as called for by Anderson and Hobson-West [27]). Future studies might therefore also question the extent to which animal advocacy in the research context is complicated by conceptualisations of the animal as both patient and scientific tool, and how their other roles and accordant interests may or may not be given opportunities to flourish in research facilities.…”

“…Crucially, in addition to these core requirements under the ASPA, the NVS is also governed by their professional accreditation and have 'professional responsibilities to the animals under their care, to other veterinary surgeons, to the public, and to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) (under the VSA (Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966))' [21] (p. 72). This means that the NVS must 'actively navigate the boundary between these two pieces of legislation, exercising professional judgement to reconcile potentially conflicting tensions arising from multiple professional accountabilities within the laboratory' [22].…”

“…Existing empirical literature on the role of the NVS is sparse, but has focused, for example, on their route into the role from clinical practice [23]; their relationship with the 3Rs [24][25][26]; geographical dimensions of their ethical boundary work [27] and their role in promoting standardisation and regularisation [28,29]. Historians have argued that animal welfare groups were the first to propose the role, imagining the veterinarian to act as 'the animal's friend' [30] (pp.…”

9 (Dis)placing veterinary medicine

“…3 This chapter contributes to this emerging social scientific body of work by examining how Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVSs)a mandated presence in commercial and university UK animal research laboratories -articulate their niche as part of the broader veterinary profession. While other outputs from the Animal Research Nexus Programme (AnNex) focus on the career journey of the individual NVS, 4 and the role of geography in the construction of the laboratory as a positive ethical space, 5 this chapter focuses more specifically on the borderlands 6 that emerge between clinical and laboratory practice when veterinary professionals articulate the practical and personal differences involved in moving between and performing different kinds of veterinary roles. In so doing we point to the complex ways in which veterinarians draw, navigate, and blur boundaries between their professional worlds, despite ostensibly centralised professional regulation.…”

Justifying Euthanasia: A Qualitative Study of Veterinarians’ Ethical Boundary Work of “Good” Killing

“…In modern society, veterinary medicine is crucial as a healthcare profession [1,2]. Trusted by the public as the primary medical caregivers for animals, veterinarians carry a significant ethical burden in their practice.…”