Abstract
With an established history of controversy in the UK, the use of animals in science continues to generate significant socio-ethical discussion. Here, the figure of ‘the public’ plays a key role. However, dominant imaginaries of ‘the public’ have significant methodological and ethical problems. Examining these, this paper critiques three ways in which ‘the public’ is currently constructed in relation to animal research; namely as un- or mis-informed; homogenous; and holding fixed and extractable views. In considering an alternative to such imaginaries, we turn to the Mass Observation Project (MOP), a national life-writing project in the UK. In its efforts to generate writing which is typically reflexive, its recognition of the plurality and performativity of identity, and embrace of knowledge as situated yet fluid, the MOP offers lessons for approaching views towards animal research and the role of publics in dialogue around the practice. In considering the MOP, we underline the need to acknowledge the role of method in shaping both what publics are able to articulate, and which positions they are able to articulate from. Finally, we stress the need for future dialogue around animal research to involve publics beyond one-way measurements of ‘public opinion’ and instead work to foster a reciprocity which enables them to act as collaborators in and coproducers of animal research policy, practice, and dialogue.
Highlights
Across the social sciences, the scientific use of animals has generated a rich body of research
Attracting a diverse range of scholars, animal research has been studied as a scientific controversy (Nelkin, 1995), a space in which human and non-human actors intersect through science (Birke et al, 2007), and most relevant to this paper, a socio-political issue in which public opinion is enrolled as currency (Hobson-West, 2010)
The societal dialogue around animal research in the UK is characterised by a great deal of political, stakeholder, and media attention devoted to calculations of, or reactions to, what ‘the public’ think
Summary
The scientific use of animals has generated a rich body of research. In discussing the MOP's potential as an alternative to dominant imaginaries of ‘the public’ and treatment of ‘public’ views and opinion, we present analysis of MOP writing on the 2016 Directive on the topic of ‘Using animals in research’ This analysis draws from a larger project (McGlacken, 2021a) in which the first author analysed the Directive's 159 responses (72 paper and 87 electronic) using a constructionist thematic approach, which, as Braun and Clarke We critique assumptions that public views are fixed and extractable with reference to the MOP's embrace of temporality Overall, this critique implies that to foster meaningful dialogue around animal research, such imaginaries of ‘the public’ must be replaced with those which recognise publics as stakeholders and collaborators in the ongoing societal project of negotiating the use of animals in research. When discussing particular MOP excerpts, we refer to Mass Observers by the identification numbers they are issued by the archive
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
