Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34624694›Full record

ArticleStudies in history and philosophy of science2021

Edge cases in animal research law: Constituting the regulatory borderlands of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.

Alexandra Palmer, Reuben Message, Beth Greenhough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Studies in history and philosophy of science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Out of the laboratory, into the field: perspectives on social, ethical and regulatory challenges in UK wildlife research.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexandra PalmerSchool of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, 3a Symonds Street, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. Electronic address: alexandra.palmer@ouce.ox.ac.uk.
Reuben MessageSchool of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Beth GreenhoughSchool of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 205393/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust WT205393/A/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores how the boundaries of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) are constituted, as illustrative of the rising importance of legal procedures around animal research and how these are continuously being challenged and questioned. Drawing on empirical work in animal research communities, we consider how it is decided whether activities are undertaken for an "experimental or other scientific purpose". We do this by focusing on "edge cases", where debates occur about whether to include an activity within A(SP)A's remit. We demonstrate that the boundaries of animal research regulation in the UK are products of past and present decisions, dependencies, and social relationships. Boundaries are therefore not clear-cut and fixed, but rather flexible and changing borderlands. We particularly highlight the roles of: historical precedent; the management of risk, workload, and cost; institutional and professional identities; and research design in constituting A(SP)A's edges. In doing so, we demonstrate the importance of paying attention to how, in practice, animal law requires a careful balance between adhering to legal paragraphs and allowing for discretion. This in turn has real-world implications for what and how science is done, who does it, and how animals are used in its service.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimalsUnited KingdomAnimal researchBorderlandsBoundary workLawRegulationRisk management

Identifiers

PMID34624694
PMCPMC8667871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.