Figuring the ‘cynical scientist’ in British animal science: the politics of invisibility

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL Biosocieties Pub Date : 2023-09-26 DOI:10.1057/s41292-023-00312-z
Tarquin Holmes, Carrie Friese
{"title":"Figuring the ‘cynical scientist’ in British animal science: the politics of invisibility","authors":"Tarquin Holmes, Carrie Friese","doi":"10.1057/s41292-023-00312-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper investigates the ‘cynical scientist’ as a figure in British animal science discourse that developed in relation to the nineteenth-century emergence of the ‘sceptical scientist’. Here, efforts by scientists to demarcate their profession’s territory led to religious backlash against an alleged ‘divorce’ of British science from Christian morality. Animal experimentation became embroiled in this controversy through antivivisectionists’ conviction that animal research was symptomatic of scientific scepticism and Continental atheism’s malign influence. Accusations of cynicism ultimately forced British scientists to accept legal regulation following the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection. British scientists were, however, able to utilise their political leverage and credibility as experts to favourably influence licensing and inspection. We suggest that efforts to silence public claims of scientific cynicism may have enabled ‘cynical scientists’ to remain invisible and that this was marked by privilege and power, not marginality. Nevertheless, we argue that regulation and reforms have also worked to internalise within British animal science the notion that scientific cynicism must be combatted through proper governance and internal discipline.","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-023-00312-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper investigates the ‘cynical scientist’ as a figure in British animal science discourse that developed in relation to the nineteenth-century emergence of the ‘sceptical scientist’. Here, efforts by scientists to demarcate their profession’s territory led to religious backlash against an alleged ‘divorce’ of British science from Christian morality. Animal experimentation became embroiled in this controversy through antivivisectionists’ conviction that animal research was symptomatic of scientific scepticism and Continental atheism’s malign influence. Accusations of cynicism ultimately forced British scientists to accept legal regulation following the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection. British scientists were, however, able to utilise their political leverage and credibility as experts to favourably influence licensing and inspection. We suggest that efforts to silence public claims of scientific cynicism may have enabled ‘cynical scientists’ to remain invisible and that this was marked by privilege and power, not marginality. Nevertheless, we argue that regulation and reforms have also worked to internalise within British animal science the notion that scientific cynicism must be combatted through proper governance and internal discipline.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国动物科学中的“愤世嫉俗的科学家”:隐形政治
摘要:本文调查了“愤世嫉俗的科学家”作为英国动物科学话语中的一个人物,该话语与19世纪“怀疑科学家”的出现有关。在这里,科学家划定其职业领域的努力导致了宗教对所谓英国科学与基督教道德“离婚”的强烈反对。由于反活体解剖论者坚信动物研究是科学怀疑主义和欧陆无神论邪恶影响的征兆,动物实验也卷入了这场争论。玩世不恭的指责最终迫使英国科学家接受了1875年皇家活体解剖委员会的法律规定。然而,英国科学家能够利用他们作为专家的政治影响力和信誉,对许可和检查产生有利的影响。我们认为,努力压制公众对科学犬儒主义的主张,可能使“犬儒主义的科学家”保持隐形,这是特权和权力的标志,而不是边缘化。然而,我们认为,监管和改革也在英国动物科学内部形成了一种观念,即必须通过适当的治理和内部纪律来打击科学犬儒主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biosocieties
Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society. BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances. As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe. BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
期刊最新文献
‘Our biology is listening’: biomarkers as molecular vestiges of early life and the production of positive childhood experiences in behavioral epigenetics Anticipating and suspending: the chronopolitics of cryopreservation From brain “scar” to “bat shit crazy”: negotiating the madness of sexual violence discourse What is the cure for absolute infertility? Biomedicalisation and routinisation of surrogacy and uterus transplantation in Nordic medical journals The politics of suspension suspended: the curious case of a cryopreserved cell product
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1