Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39449757›Full record

ArticleScottish geographical journal2024

Amphibious ethics and speculative immersions: laboratory aquariums as a site for developing a more inclusive animal geography.

Beth Greenhough, Emma Roe, Reuben Message

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scottish geographical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Beth GreenhoughSchool of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7351-2619
Emma RoeSchool of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Highfield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-2133
Reuben MessageSchool of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-3282

Funding

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

Abstract

Human capacity to sense and respond to the suffering of non-human animals is key to animal care and welfare. Intuitively these modes of relating seem best suited to interactions between humans and warm-blooded mammals who share human-like facial features and characteristics. Animal geographers and those working in animal welfare have noted the challenges that humans face in learning to care about fishes, and how this leads to welfare guidelines and regulations which are poorly suited to aquatic species. This paper draws on interviews with laboratory aquarists and biomedical researchers to explore how they have learnt to sense and respond to the needs of fishes in the laboratory. We offer two key observations. Firstly, despite significant bodily differences, humans find ways to empathise with fishes. Secondly, whilst observations of bodies and behaviours predominate in laboratory mammal welfare assessments, when working with fishes water quality serves as an important proxy for species health. We conclude that the laboratory aquarium signifies methodological and conceptual limits in contemporary animal geographies. We further argue that these barriers should be understood as cultural, and - as we demonstrate - that there is consequently scope and capacity to reach beyond them by engaging in amphibious ethics and speculative immersions.

Indexed as

Animal geographiesempathyethicsfishmarginalisation

Identifiers

PMID39449757
PMCPMC11495481

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.