“Havens of mercy”: health, medical research, and the governance of the movement of dogs in twentieth-century America

Abstract

This article argues that the movement of dogs from pounds to medical laboratories played a critically important role in debates over the use of animals in science and medicine in the United States in the twentieth century, not least by drawing the scientific community into every greater engagement with bureaucratic political governance. If we are to understand the unique characteristics of the American federal legislation that emerges in the 1960s, we need to understand the long and protracted debate over the use of pound animals at the local municipal and state level between antivivisectionists, humane activists, and scientific and medical researchers. We argue that the Laboratory Animal Care Act of 1966 reflects the slow evolution of a strategy that proved most successful in local conflicts, and which would characterize a “new humanitarianism”: not the regulation of experimental practices but of the care and transportation of the animals being provided to the laboratory. Our analysis is consistent with, and draws upon, scholarship which has established the productive power of public agencies and civil society on the periphery of the American state.

Lost Pets Sold to Research Laboratories: Addressing Pound Seizure Through an Educational Social Media Page ‘FetchFreedom’

“…In addition to the numerous impacts on physical health, pound seizure can affect mental health by interfering with the humananimal bond. For example, significant distress may arise among caregivers following the loss of their companion animal, an issue which is exacerbated when the companion cannot be retrieved after being sent to a research facility (Kirk & Ramsden, 2021). This disproportionality affects individuals of lower socioeconomic status who may lack the transportation or financial resources required to retrieve their impounded companion animal before the 72-hour window has passed.…”

Nonhuman Primates in Public Health: Between Biological Standardization, Conservation and Care

“…2 “Care” involved, for instance, proper animal facilities with barrier systems, and trained staff that would know how to contain disease and promote healthy animals. While these were standards emerging initially from within the sciences due to the demand for more reliable animal material for research and for reliable procurement of animals, “care” in animal research was also increasingly linked to public concerns for animal welfare and good care became key to the moral justification of animal suffering (Kirk 2019 ; Kirk and Ramsden 2021 ; Druglitrø 2014 , 2018 ).…”

“… 1 See also Kirk and Ramsden ( 2021 ), Kirk ( 2008 , 2018 ), and Rader ( 2004 ) for noteworthy studies of the circulation of dogs and mice for science. See also the seminal anthology by Clarke and Fujimura ( 1992 ) on the development of model organisms as the “right tools” for the life sciences.…”