Search

This paper examines discourses around "volunteering" in animal research. Through a qualitative textual analysis of the scientific literature using animals in behavioral and psychological research, we demonstrate that "voluntary" and related terms are used by scientists in a variety of distinct ways, which carry a range of ethical and political connotations. While any reference to volunteering might be assumed to imply free, unconstrained, and unpaid participation in an activity, in the animal research literature the term is often used simply to signal a lack of physical restraint, even though other human-imposed constraints are at play. Though truly voluntary behavior may be impossible, we nevertheless argue that there is a case for seeing use of the language of volunteering as an ethical or political move in which scientists aim to highlight a goal of minimizing human control, promoting animal welfare, or representing their research as ethically acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under processes of responsibilisation and individualisation in the 'risk society', as well as discourses of intensive motherhood, mothers are expected to make 'good' decisions regarding their children's health. Consequently, decision-making concerning childhood vaccination becomes an emotionally challenging process, as mothers strive to minimise risk while simultaneously promoting and protecting health. Existing research shows that a substantial number of parents of young children have concerns regarding childhood vaccination. This article aims to examine how mothers who identify as vaccine hesitant dynamically construct risk, emotion, and responsibility when accounting for their decisions about childhood vaccination. Based on 15 in-depth interviews conducted in Belgium, this article reports the findings of a discourse analysis. For the latter, we draw on positioning theory and Lupton's emotion-risk assemblage. The findings report three storylines that mothers discursively construct when discussing risk and responsibility in relation to childhood vaccination, namely a health promotion, a maternal protection and a critical healthcare consumer storyline. These storylines help to clarify the fluid and multidimensional nature of the mothers' accounts of vaccine hesitancy. Furthermore, the findings provide empirical evidence for the use of the emotion-risk assemblage, as we find that vaccine hesitant mothers construct risk in relation to feelings of safety, control, empowerment, anxiety, fear, worry, intuition, vulnerability, being overwhelmed, pity and contempt. Overall, the findings demonstrate that when accounting for their decisions concerning childhood vaccination, hesitant mothers assume responsibilities within a context of social and gendered vulnerability, which affects their constructions of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The veterinary profession has been relatively understudied in social science, though recent work has highlighted the geographic dimensions of veterinary expertise. This paper draws on in‐depth qualitative interviews with Named Veterinary Surgeons (NVSs) working in UK animal research to demonstrate how and why they distinguish between ethical aspects of veterinary work in the spaces of the laboratory and general clinical practice. The paper mobilises the sociological concept of ethical boundary‐work to help understand how animal research – often assumed to represent a contentious ethical space – is constructed positively as a space for veterinary work. Findings suggest first, that NVSs differentiate between laboratory veterinary‐work and clinical work based on the scale at which veterinary expertise functions in the provision of healthcare to animals. Second, NVSs highlight a geography of veterinary authority in which veterinary expertise is felt to be more successfully applied in the laboratory compared with the clinic, where professional expertise competes with other sources of information and clients' finances and behaviours. Third, NVSs articulate a geography of consistency in which veterinary care in the laboratory is claimed to be more consistent between animals, as opposed to in the clinic, where animal experience may be influenced by individual owner characteristics. Overall, we show how through engaging in this kind of ethical boundary‐work NVSs are not only presenting a form of scientific practice as 'ethical', they are also constructing a professional topology of veterinary practice and expertise. Finally, the paper argues for greater attentiveness to veterinary geographies beyond the more routine spaces of veterinary practice. This article mobilises the sociological concept of ethical boundary‐work to help understand how animal research – often assumed to represent a contentious ethical space – is constructed positively by Named Veterinary Surgeons as a space for veterinary work. We identify three aspects through which this boundary‐work is performed: an understanding of the scale at which veterinary expertise functions, a geography of veterinary authority in different spaces, and finally a consistency of veterinary care that is more applicable in the laboratory than the clinic. Overall we show how through engaging in this kind of ethical boundary‐work, NVSs are not only presenting a form of scientific practice as 'ethical', they are also constructing a professional topology of veterinary practice and expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.x Byline: Pru Hobson-West (1) Keywords: vaccination; risk; trust; resistance; MMR Abstract: Abstract Sociological interest in vaccination has recently increased, largely in response to media coverage of concerns over the safety of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine. The resulting body of research highlights the importance of risk and trust in understanding parental and professional engagement with vaccination. To date, only limited attention has been paid to organised parental groups that campaign against aspects of vaccination policy. This paper reports findings from a qualitative study of contemporary groups in the UK, and develops three main lines of argument. First, these actors are best analysed as 'Vaccine Critical groups' and include Radical and Reformist types. Second, Vaccine Critical groups discursively resist vaccination through a reframing that constructs risk as unknown and non-random. Third, trust as faith is negatively contrasted with the empowerment that is promised to result from taking personal responsibility for health and decision-making. Whilst representing a challenge to aspects of vaccination policy, this study confirms that the groups are involved in the articulation and promotion of other dominant discourses. These findings have implications for wider sociological debates about risk and trust in relation to health. Author Affiliation: (1)Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham Article note: Address for correspondence: Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, e-mail: Pru.Hobson-West@nottingham.ac.uk

While sociologists of medicine have focused their efforts on understanding human health, illness, and medicine, veterinary medical practice has not yet caught their attention in any sustained way. In this critical review article, we use insights from the sociology of diagnosis literature to explore veterinary practice, and aim to demonstrate the importance of animals to sociological understandings of health, illness and disease. As in human medicine, our analysis shows the importance of diagnosis in creating and maintaining the power and authority of the veterinary professional. However, we then explore how diagnosis operates as a kind of dance, where professional authority can be challenged, particularly in light of the complex ethical responsibilities and clinical interactions that result from the triad of professional/owner/animal patient. Finally, we consider diagnosis via the precept of entanglement, and raise the intriguing possibility of interspecies health relations, whereby decision‐making in human health care may be influenced by experiences in animal health care and vice‐versa. In our conclusion, we argue that this analysis provides opportunities to scholars researching diagnosis in human health care, particularly around the impact of commercial drivers; has implications for veterinary and public health practitioners; and should help animate the emerging sociology of veterinary medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]