Locating the ‘culture wars’ in laboratory animal research: national constitutions and global competition

Abstract

The increasingly global scope of biomedical research and testing using animals is generating disagreement over the best way to regulate laboratory animal science and care. Despite many common aims, the practices through which political and epistemic authority are allocated in the regulations around animal research varies internationally, coming together in what can be identified as different national constitutions. Tensions between these periodically erupt within the laboratory animal research community as a ‘cultural war’ between those favouring centralised control and those advocating local flexibility. Drawing on long-term engagement with key events and actors in these policy debates, I propose these national differences in the constitution of animal research can be understood through the intersection of two key variables: i) the location of institutional responsibility to permit research projects and ii) the distribution of epistemic authority to shape research practices. These variables are used to explain the development of different policy frameworks in the UK, Europe, and the USA, and identify where there is convergence and divergence in practice. Concluding, I suggest the way these approaches are combined and enacted in different countries reflects different national civic epistemologies, which are coming into conflict in the increasingly global networks of laboratory animal science.

Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society

“…Third, there is the translation of recommendations into national research regulations. Proposals on how to translate the 3Rs into regulations reflect ideas about the proper role of the state in limiting academic freedom and promoting research innovation, as well as in governing scientific procedures and protecting animals (85). Finally, there is the translation of regulatory requirements built upon the 3Rs into everyday policy and scientific practice -from animal technicians seeking to refine procedures (86), to scientists imagining public attitudes when deciding which species to use (87), or institutions creating barriers to the use of replacements (88).…”

13 Commentaries on distributing expertise and accountability

“…On one level, then, where institutional responsibility lies is 'relatively easy to identify'. 11 However, the chapters in this section of the book draw on qualitative empirical research to reveal the ways key actors are involved in navigating regulation's interpretive flexibility. By taking a nexus type approach, the studies are thus able to connect governance processes with the 'lived, embodied experience of those with regulatory responsibilities', 12 or, alternatively, to foreground those excluded from the legislation.…”

Introduction

“…18 However, while everyone has a part to play, these roles are not equal and are often carried out in prescribed ways. While relations between the actors and agencies involved in animal research are not solely shaped by law and licensing -informal and changing social and political norms around expertise and authority are also crucial 19 -the current legal framework of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) is used to ground our work in UK animal research. As Myelnikov (Chapter 1) demonstrates, while certain voices were excluded from the law's development, ASPA also signalled a reduction in the authority of scientists compared with its predecessor.…”