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.
Highlights
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
I draw on literature in science and technology studies (STS) and regulation to propose many international differences can be explained by looking at the intersection of two key variables in national governance: i) the location of institutional responsibility to permit research and ii) the distribution of epistemic authority to shape research and care
US research is authorised locally by the institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) system, whilst epistemic authority is concentrated in professional veterinary and scientific roles, within a broadly contentious civic epistemology definitions of objective science are based on the understanding of a more distributed empirical common knowledge, which is embodied by experienced individuals, who are often members of the Civil Service, who chair committees or inquiries, and whose job it is to speak for the public good
Summary
The UK has left the European Union (EU) but has yet to redefine its ongoing regulatory relationship with scientific research in Europe, the United States of America (USA), or other countries like Singapore. The UK has opportunities to realign its research practices with international collaborators in the USA, Europe, or Asia, but it faces challenges given differences in the way animal research regulations are already constituted globally. It is not yet clear which ways UK regulation might shift to align itself with different countries and, given international complexities in the policies governing animal research, it is hard to predict the practical consequences of change. I develop a framework for understanding international differences in the regulation of animal research, focusing on discussion of policy and practice in the UK1 and the USA over the last 20 years. Demonstrating how differences in the regulation of animal research are embedded in national constitutions indicates how challenging they are to transform
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
