Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36655137›Full record

ArticleSocial & cultural geography2023

A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research.

Emma Roe, Beth Greenhough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social & cultural geography, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Rehoming Laboratory Rats: Exploring Perceptions of Rehomers, Animal Technicians, and Biomedical Researchers.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Article
  3. "Killing in the Name of 3R?" The Ethics of Death in Animal Research.Journal of agricultural & environmental ethics · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Emma RoeSchool of Geography and Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-2133
Beth GreenhoughSchool of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7351-2619

Funding

Wellcome Trust 100899Wellcome Trust 205393Wellcome Trust 205393/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations.

Indexed as

animal geographiesanimal researchCarekilling/deathscience and technology studies

Identifiers

PMID36655137
PMCPMC7614075

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.