Search

In times of rapid growth of the organic market and differentiation processes within the sector, efforts are made on different levels to (re)define and strengthen organic values. The normative part of this process is the reformulation of IFOAM-principles, which form the basis for ethical commitment within the organic movement, without being fully integrated into organic regulations. This article addresses the question of which ethical activities are practised on organic farms and by organic companies that go beyond the organic regulations (referred to as "organicPlus" in this study), with what arguments these activities are communicated to consumers and how they are related to the dimensions of sustainability. The survey encompasses 100 small and medium-sized enterprises in five European countries (Austria, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Switzerland) that deal with organic products. In the paper various "organicPlus" approaches are analysed with a particular focus on communication arguments. Innovative communication strategies are seen as a valuable tool for the strategic positioning of organic companies. The mapping of companies resulted in a total of 72 different generic communication arguments relating to "organicPlus" activities. The paper offers a categorisation of these communication arguments on the basis of the economic, ecological/environmental and the social pillar of sustainability extended by a cultural dimension. Furthermore, the relations between the companies' "organicPlus" approaches, business size, company type and product category are analysed. Finally, the paper reflects on status quo and the potential of integrating "organicPlus" approaches into organic enterprises and their communication to consumers.

Consumers increasingly criticise food that is produced under unsatisfactory social and environmental conditions. From the very beginning, organic food production included ethical aspects and did not only care for the environment and animal welfare but also for social aspects of people affected by the organic supply chain. With the organic sector gaining additional market shares, products from organic mass production become more and more important and competition is predominantly a question of price. Ethical values going beyond the standards of the EU regulation on organic farming are no longer features of large parts of organic production. Against this background, the question arises whether there is a demand and an increased willingness to pay for 'ethical' organic food. This would create possibilities of product and market differentiation with respect to ethical products. This paper investigates various ethical communication arguments from consumers' perspective by means of an Information-Display-Matrix (IDM) in five European countries. The IDM is a process tracing method aiming at monitoring the information acquisition and purchase behaviour of consumers. Seven different ethical attributes and the product price were tested with about 1200 consumers. The most important ethical attributes turned out to be 'animal welfare', 'regional production' and 'fair prices for farmers'. These attributes were followed by 'product price', indicating that consumers tend to prefer cheaper products over ethical products with attributes like 'care farming', 'social criteria of production', 'protection of biodiversity' and 'cultural aspects'. There are only minor differences between the countries regarding the order of the most important attributes. Altogether, the results allow the conclusion that a large share of consumers of organic food would be willing to pay a price premium for 'ethical' products.

This article explores how the concept of consent to medical treatment applies in the veterinary context, and aims to evaluate normative justifications for owner consent to treatment of animal patients. We trace the evolution of the test for valid consent in human health decision-making, against a backdrop of increased recognition of the importance of patient rights and a gradual judicial espousal of a doctrine of informed consent grounded in a particular understanding of autonomy. We argue that, notwithstanding the adoption of a similar discourse of informed consent in professional veterinary codes, notions of autonomy and informed consent are not easily transferrable to the veterinary medicine context, given inter alia the tripartite relationship between veterinary professional, owner and animal patient. We suggest that a more appropriate, albeit inexact, analogy may be drawn with paediatric practice which is premised on a similarly tripartite relationship and where decisions must be reached in the best interests of the child. However, acknowledging the legal status of animals as property and how consent to veterinary treatment is predicated on the animal owner’s willingness and ability to pay, we propose that the appropriate response is for veterinary professionals generally to accept the client’s choice, provided this is informed. Yet such client autonomy must be limited where animal welfare concerns exist, so that beneficence continues to play an important role in the veterinary context. We suggest that this ‘middle road’ should be reflected in professional veterinary guidance.

Informed consent processes are a vital component of both human and veterinary medicine. Current practice encourages veterinarians to learn from insights in the human medical field about how best to achieve valid consent. However, drawing on published literature in veterinary and medical ethics, this paper identifies considerable differences between the purposes of veterinary and human medical consent. Crucially, it is argued that the legal status of animal patients as ‘property’ has implications for the ethical role of veterinary informed consent and the protection of the animal ‘patient’. It is suggested that veterinary informed consent should be viewed as an ethical pivot point where the multiple responsibilities of a veterinary professional converge. In practice, balancing these responsibilities creates considerable ethical challenges. As an example, the paper discusses the renewed call for UK veterinarians to make animal welfare their first priority; we predict that this imperative may increasingly cause veterinary informed consent to become an ethical pressure point due to tensions caused by the often conflicting interests of animals, owners and the veterinary profession. In conclusion, the paper argues that whilst gaining informed consent can often be presented as a robust ethical justification in human medicine, the same cannot be said in veterinary medicine. If the veterinary profession wish to prioritise animal welfare, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the nature of authority gained through owner informed consent and to consider whether animal patients might need to be better protected outside the consent process in certain circumstances.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from enquiry in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they frame questions, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving mutual understanding of different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing t

Vaccination is regarded by the medical profession as one of the greatest public health success stories, and recent opposition, for example over the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine, as a failure of understanding. Relatively little social scientific analysis exists on vaccination opposition. However, risk, trust and science are dominant themes within literature on public resistance to technology, and in contemporary theories such as risk society. This thesis therefore evaluates the relevance of these themes for an understanding of vaccination resistance in the UK. The empirical research primarily involves a discourse analysis of interview, document and website data generated from ten parental organisations, established to campaign against aspects of vaccination policy. The study defines these organisations as 'Vaccine Critical groups' and further classifies them into Radical and Reformist categories. In contrast to smallpox vaccination in nineteenth century England, vaccination is no longer compulsory in the UK. Nevertheless, from a governmentality perspective, the individual is still subjected to, what can be termed, the 'imperative of vaccination'. This thesis argues that the Vaccine Critical groups resist this imperative: first, by reframing risk as unknown, non-objective and individual specific; second, by demonstrating an ambivalent relationship with science; and third, by challenging faith in professional expertise and constructing the parent as the potential vaccine expert. These discourses create another type of moral imperative, which actually conforms to developments in the new public health that are encouraged by the state and the medical profession. The findings demonstrate the limits of a realist approach to risk, challenge existing theories of risk society and complicate assumptions about a public crisis of trust in expertise or science. Policy implications include the need to engage with vaccine resisters and their critical discourses, and to r

Informed consent processes are a vital component of both human and veterinary medicine. Current practice encourages veterinarians to learn from insights in the human medical field about how best to achieve valid consent. However, drawing on published literature in veterinary and medical ethics, this paper identifies considerable differences between the purposes of veterinary and human medical consent. Crucially, it is argued that the legal status of animal patients as ‘property’ has implications for the ethical role of veterinary informed consent and the protection of the animal ‘patient’. It is suggested that veterinary informed consent should be viewed as an ethical pivot point where the multiple responsibilities of a veterinary professional converge. In practice, balancing these responsibilities creates considerable ethical challenges. As an example, the paper discusses the renewed call for UK veterinarians to make animal welfare their first priority; we predict that this imperative may increasingly cause veterinary informed consent to become an ethical pressure point due to tensions caused by the often conflicting interests of animals, owners and the veterinary profession. In conclusion, the paper argues that whilst gaining informed consent can often be presented as a robust ethical justification in human medicine, the same cannot be said in veterinary medicine. If the veterinary profession wish to prioritise animal welfare, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the nature of authority gained through owner informed consent and to consider whether animal patients might need to be better protected outside the consent process in certain circumstances.

Increasingly high-profile research is being undertaken into the socio-environmental challenges associated with the over-production and consumption of food from animals. Transforming food systems to mitigate climate change and hidden hunger, ensure food security and good health all point to reducing animal-based foods as a key lever. Moving beyond animal-based food systems is a societal grand challenge requiring coordinated international research by the social sciences and humanities. A ‘selective openness’ to this range of disciplines has been observed within multi-discipline research programmes designed to address societal grand challenges including those concerned with the sustainability of food systems, inhibiting the impact of social sciences and humanities. Further, existing research on animal-based foods within these disciplines is largely dispersed and focused on particular parts of food systems. Inspired by the ‘Sutherland Method’ this paper discusses the results of an iterative research prioritisation process carried out to enhance capacity, mutual understanding and impact amongst European social sciences and humanities researchers. The process produced 15 research questions from an initial list of 100 and classified under the following five themes: (1) debating and visioning food from animals; (2) transforming agricultural spaces; (3) framing animals as food; (4) eating practices and identities; and (5) governing transitions beyond animal-based food systems. These themes provide an important means of making connections between research questions that invite and steer research on key challenges in moving beyond animal-based food systems. The themes also propose loci for future transdisciplinary research programmes that join researchers from the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities and stakeholders from beyond academia to develop cooperative research and implementation initiatives. The experiences gained from the prioritisation process draw atte

This article explores how the concept of consent to medical treatment applies in the veterinary context, and aims to evaluate normative justifications for owner consent to treatment of animal patients. We trace the evolution of the test for valid consent in human health decision-making, against a backdrop of increased recognition of the importance of patient rights and a gradual judicial espousal of a doctrine of informed consent grounded in a particular understanding of autonomy. We argue that, notwithstanding the adoption of a similar discourse of informed consent in professional veterinary codes, notions of autonomy and informed consent are not easily transferrable to the veterinary medicine context, given inter alia the tripartite relationship between veterinary professional, owner and animal patient. We suggest that a more appropriate, albeit inexact, analogy may be drawn with paediatric practice which is premised on a similarly tripartite relationship and where decisions must be reached in the best interests of the child. However, acknowledging the legal status of animals as property and how consent to veterinary treatment is predicated on the animal owner’s willingness and ability to pay, we propose that the appropriate response is for veterinary professionals generally to accept the client’s choice, provided this is informed. Yet such client autonomy must be limited where animal welfare concerns exist, so that beneficence continues to play an important role in the veterinary context. We suggest that this ‘middle road’ should be reflected in professional veterinary guidance.

The principles of the 3Rs—replacement, refinement, and reduction—strongly shape discussion of methods for performing more humane animal research and the regulation of this contested area of technoscience. This special issue looks back to the origins of the 3Rs principles through five papers that explore how it is enacted and challenged in practice and that develop critical considerations about its future. Three themes connect the papers in this special issue. These are (1) the multiplicity of roles enacted by those who use and care for animals in research, (2) the distribution of “feelings that matter” across species and spaces of laboratory animal practice, and (3) the growing importance of “cultures of care” in animal research.

The use of non-human animals as models in research and drug testing is a key route through which contemporary scientific knowledge is certified. Given ethical concerns, regulation of animal research promotes the use of less ‘sentient’ animals. This paper draws on a documentary analysis of legal documents, and qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons and others at a commercial laboratory in the UK. Its key claim is that the concept of animal sentience is entangled with a particular imaginary of how the general public or wider society views animals. We call this imaginary societal sentience. Against a backdrop of increasing ethnographic work on care encounters in the laboratory, this concept helps to stress the wider context within which such encounters take place. We conclude that societal sentience has potential purchase beyond the animal research field, in helping to highlight the affective dimension of public imaginaries (Welsh and Wynne 2013), and their ethical consequences. Researching and critiquing societal sentience, we argue, may ultimately have more impact on the fate of humans and non-humans in the laboratory, than focusing wholly on ethics as situated practice.

A guide dog is a domestic dog (Canis familiaris) that is specifically educated to provide mobility support to a blind or visually impaired owner. Current dog suitability assessments focus on behavioural traits, including: trainability, reactivity or attention to environmental stimuli, low aggressiveness, fearfulness and stress behaviour, energy levels, and attachment behaviour. The aim of this study was to find out which aspects of guide dog behaviour are of key importance to guide dog owners themselves. Sixty-three semi-structured interview surveys were carried out with guide dog owners. Topics included the behaviour of their guide dog both within and outside their working role, and also focused on examples of behaviour which might be considered outside a guide dog owner’s typical expectations. Both positive and negative examples and situations were covered. This allowed for the discovery of new perspectives and emerging themes on living and working with a guide dog. Thematic analysis of the results reveals that a dog’s safe behaviour in the face of traffic was the most important positive aspect of a guide dog’s behaviour and pulling or high tension on the lead and /or harness was the most discussed negative aspect. Other aspects of guide dog behaviour were highlighted as particularly pleasing or disappointing by owners including attentiveness to the task, work, environment and owner; confidence in work and decision making (with confident dogs resulting in confident owners) obedience and control; calmness and locating objectives. The results reveal important areas of behaviour that are not currently considered priorities in guide dog assessments; these key areas were consistency of behaviour, the dog’s maturity and the dog’s behaviour in relation to children. The survey revealed a large range in what owners considered problematic or pleasing behaviours and this highlights the heterogeneity in guide dog owners and the potential multifarious roles of the guide dog. T

The sociology of professions literature would predict that the contemporary state would not allow groups to continue unregulated or unreformed. However, this is indeed the case with the UK veterinary profession, with legislation dating back to 1966. Using an interdisciplinary analysis of published literature and reports, this paper assesses whether wider social, political and ethical dynamics can better explain this intriguing anomaly. We conclude with critical implications for the sociology of the professions. Furthermore, we argue that continuing to ignore the veterinary profession, and animals more generally, in sociological research will result in an impoverished and partial understanding of contemporary healthcare and occupations.

This paper demonstrates the relevance of animals to medical sociology by arguing that pet owners’ accounts of veterinary decision-making can highlight key sociological themes which have important relevance to both human and animal health. Based on semi-structured interviews, the paper argues that interspecies ‘kinship’ allows for the extension of sociological claims regarding altruism, self-interest and mutuality from human blood donation to companion animal blood ‘donors’. Furthermore, this study extends sociological understanding of the human-animal bond by showing how the dog’s status as kin meant they were expected to donate blood, and that the act of donation itself represents an important opportunity for family ‘display’. However, owners who do not or cannot donate blood themselves describe pet blood donation as an opportunity to lessen associated feelings of guilt or obligation through ‘doing good by proxy’. These findings raise critical sociological and ethical questions concerning the risks and benefits of donation, and for how we understand third-party decision making. Finally, the paper argues for the close entanglement of human and animal health, and concludes that sociologists of health and medicine should explore the radical possibility that decision-making in healthcare more generally might be influenced by experiences at the veterinary clinic, and vice versa.

Disease prevention and control practices are frequently highlighted as important to ensure the health and welfare of farmed animals, although little is known as to why not many practices are carried out. The aim of this study was to identify the motivators and barriers of dairy cattle farmers towards the use of biosecurity measures on dairy farms using a health psychology approach. Twenty-five farmers on 24 farms in Great Britain (GB) were interviewed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. Results indicated that farmers perceived they had the ability to control what happened on their farms in terms of preventing and controlling disease, and described benefits from being proactive and vigilant. However, barriers were cited in relation to testing inaccuracies, effectiveness and time-efficiency of practices, and disease transmission route (e.g., airborne transmission). Farmers reported they were positively influenced by veterinarians and negatively influenced by the government (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)) and the general public. Decisions to implement practices were influenced by the perceived severity of the disease in question, if disease was diagnosed on the farm already, or was occurring on other farms. Farmers described undertaking a form of personal risk assessment when deciding if practices were worth doing, which did not always involve building in disease specific factors or opinions from veterinarians or other advisors. These results indicate that further guidance about the intricacies of control and prevention principles in relation to specific animal diseases may be required, with an obvious role for veterinarians. There appears to be an opportunity for farm advisors and herd health professionals to further understand farmer beliefs behind certain attitudes and target communication and advice accordingly to further enhance dairy cattle health and welfare.

There is limited research investigating the motivators and barriers to vaccinating dairy cattle. Veterinary surgeons have been identified as important sources of information for farmers making vaccination and disease control decisions, as well as being farmers’ preferred vaccine suppliers. Vets’ perception of their own role and communication style can be at odds with farmers’ reported preferences. The objective of this study was to investigate how dairy farmers perceived the role of vets in implementing vaccination strategies on their farm. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 dairy farmers from across Britain. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. Analysis revealed that farmers perceive vets to have an important role in facilitating decision-making in all aspects of vaccination, including the aspects of vaccine distribution and advice on implementation. This important role is acknowledged by farmers who have regular veterinary contact, but also farmers with solely emergency veterinary contact. Given this finding, future work should investigate the attitudes of vets towards vaccination and how they perceive their role. Combining this knowledge will enable optimisation of vaccination strategies on British dairy farms.

The use of animals in scientific research represents an interesting case to consider in the context of the contemporary preoccupation with transparency and openness in science and governance. In the United Kingdom, organisations critical of animal research have long called for more openness. More recently, organisations involved in animal research also seem to be embracing transparency discourses. This article provides a detailed analysis of publically available documents from animal protection groups, the animal research community and government/research funders. Our aim is to explore the similarities and differences in the way transparency is constructed and to identify what more openness is expected to achieve. In contrast to the existing literature, we conclude that the slipperiness of transparency discourses may ultimately have transformative implications for the relationship between science and society and that contemporary openness initiatives might be sowing the seeds for change to the status quo.

The use of vaccines in the cattle industry is widespread; however, there is limited published guidance for use by decision-makers such as farmers and vets. To best support vets in advising dairy farmers on the optimisation of vaccination strategies, it is important to understand how and why vets make decisions about recommending the vaccination of cattle. The objective of this study was to explore in-depth farm animal vets’ motivators and barriers to the implementation of vaccination strategies on British dairy farms. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 vets. Results indicated that vets have a positive attitude towards the use of vaccination and have few barriers to advising its implementation. Vets appear to group farmers into three ‘character types’. This characterisation influences the vet–farmer relationship and how the vet communicates with the farmer. Vets required evidence of disease or a risk of disease as a motivator to advise vaccination. However, this seemed to be sometimes overruled by a risk-averse attitude; resulting in vaccination being advised ‘just in case’. Crucially, the need for resources to support and build on the vet–farmer relationship is highlighted as an area requiring further exploration in order to optimise vaccination strategies on farm.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from enquiry in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they frame questions, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving mutual understanding of different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing t

Increasingly high-profile research is being undertaken into the socio-environmental challenges associated with the over-production and consumption of food from animals. Transforming food systems to mitigate climate change and hidden hunger, ensure food security and good health all point to reducing animal-based foods as a key lever. Moving beyond animal-based food systems is a societal grand challenge requiring coordinated international research by the social sciences and humanities. A ‘selective openness’ to this range of disciplines has been observed within multi-discipline research programmes designed to address societal grand challenges including those concerned with the sustainability of food systems, inhibiting the impact of social sciences and humanities. Further, existing research on animal-based foods within these disciplines is largely dispersed and focused on particular parts of food systems. Inspired by the ‘Sutherland Method’ this paper discusses the results of an iterative research prioritisation process carried out to enhance capacity, mutual understanding and impact amongst European social sciences and humanities researchers. The process produced 15 research questions from an initial list of 100 and classified under the following five themes: (1) debating and visioning food from animals; (2) transforming agricultural spaces; (3) framing animals as food; (4) eating practices and identities; and (5) governing transitions beyond animal-based food systems. These themes provide an important means of making connections between research questions that invite and steer research on key challenges in moving beyond animal-based food systems. The themes also propose loci for future transdisciplinary research programmes that join researchers from the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities and stakeholders from beyond academia to develop cooperative research and implementation initiatives. The experiences gained from the prioritisation process draw atte

Informed consent processes are a vital component of both human and veterinary medicine. Current practice encourages veterinarians to learn from insights in the human medical field about how best to achieve valid consent. However, drawing on published literature in veterinary and medical ethics, this paper identifies considerable differences between the purposes of veterinary and human medical consent. Crucially, it is argued that the legal status of animal patients as ‘property’ has implications for the ethical role of veterinary informed consent and the protection of the animal ‘patient’. It is suggested that veterinary informed consent should be viewed as an ethical pivot point where the multiple responsibilities of a veterinary professional converge. In practice, balancing these responsibilities creates considerable ethical challenges. As an example, the paper discusses the renewed call for UK veterinarians to make animal welfare their first priority; we predict that this imperative may increasingly cause veterinary informed consent to become an ethical pressure point due to tensions caused by the often conflicting interests of animals, owners and the veterinary profession. In conclusion, the paper argues that whilst gaining informed consent can often be presented as a robust ethical justification in human medicine, the same cannot be said in veterinary medicine. If the veterinary profession wish to prioritise animal welfare, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the nature of authority gained through owner informed consent and to consider whether animal patients might need to be better protected outside the consent process in certain circumstances.

Increasingly high-profile research is being undertaken into the socio-environmental challenges associated with the over-production and consumption of food from animals. Transforming food systems to mitigate climate change and hidden hunger, ensure food security and good health all point to reducing animal-based foods as a key lever. Moving beyond animal-based food systems is a societal grand challenge requiring coordinated international research by the social sciences and humanities. A ‘selective openness’ to this range of disciplines has been observed within multi-discipline research programmes designed to address societal grand challenges including those concerned with the sustainability of food systems, inhibiting the impact of social sciences and humanities. Further, existing research on animal-based foods within these disciplines is largely dispersed and focused on particular parts of food systems. Inspired by the ‘Sutherland Method’ this paper discusses the results of an iterative research prioritisation process carried out to enhance capacity, mutual understanding and impact amongst European social sciences and humanities researchers. The process produced 15 research questions from an initial list of 100 and classified under the following five themes: (1) debating and visioning food from animals; (2) transforming agricultural spaces; (3) framing animals as food; (4) eating practices and identities; and (5) governing transitions beyond animal-based food systems. These themes provide an important means of making connections between research questions that invite and steer research on key challenges in moving beyond animal-based food systems. The themes also propose loci for future transdisciplinary research programmes that join researchers from the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities and stakeholders from beyond academia to develop cooperative research and implementation initiatives. The experiences gained from the prioritisation process draw atte

Vaccination is regarded by the medical profession as one of the greatest public health success stories, and recent opposition, for example over the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine, as a failure of understanding. Relatively little social scientific analysis exists on vaccination opposition. However, risk, trust and science are dominant themes within literature on public resistance to technology, and in contemporary theories such as risk society. This thesis therefore evaluates the relevance of these themes for an understanding of vaccination resistance in the UK. The empirical research primarily involves a discourse analysis of interview, document and website data generated from ten parental organisations, established to campaign against aspects of vaccination policy. The study defines these organisations as 'Vaccine Critical groups' and further classifies them into Radical and Reformist categories. In contrast to smallpox vaccination in nineteenth century England, vaccination is no longer compulsory in the UK. Nevertheless, from a governmentality perspective, the individual is still subjected to, what can be termed, the 'imperative of vaccination'. This thesis argues that the Vaccine Critical groups resist this imperative: first, by reframing risk as unknown, non-objective and individual specific; second, by demonstrating an ambivalent relationship with science; and third, by challenging faith in professional expertise and constructing the parent as the potential vaccine expert. These discourses create another type of moral imperative, which actually conforms to developments in the new public health that are encouraged by the state and the medical profession. The findings demonstrate the limits of a realist approach to risk, challenge existing theories of risk society and complicate assumptions about a public crisis of trust in expertise or science. Policy implications include the need to engage with vaccine resisters and their critical discourses, and to r

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the ‘3Rs’), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, ‘cultures of care’, harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across differen