IsisCB Explore

Article ID: CBB174441189

Making the Anaesthetised Animal into a Boundary Object: An Analysis of the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection (2020)

Holmes, Tarquin (Author)
Friese, Carrie (Author)

History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
Volume: 42
Issue: 4
Pages: 50
Publication date: 2020
Language: English

DOI: 10.1007/s40656-020-00344-9

URI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00344-9

Outside Links

WorldCat

Google Scholar

JSTOR

Ethics Controversies and disputes Laboratory animals Boundary work Animals Anesthesia Vivisection 19th century Royal Commission on Vivisection (1875)

This paper explores how, at the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection, the anaesthetised animal was construed as a boundary object around which “cooperation without consensus” (Star, in: Esterbrook (ed) Computer supported cooperative work: cooperation or conflict? Springer, London, 1993) could form, serving the interests of both scientists and animals. Advocates of anaesthesia presented it as benevolently intervening between the scientific agent and animal patient. Such articulations of ‘ethical’ vivisection through anaesthesia were then mandated in the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act, and thus have had significant downstream effects on the regulation of laboratory animals in Britain and beyond. Constructing this ‘consensus’ around the anaesthetised animal, however, required first excluding abolitionists and inhumane scientists, and secondly limiting the interests of experimental animals to the avoidance of pain through anaesthesia and euthanasia, thereby circumventing the issue of their possible interest in future life. This consensus also served to secure the interests of vivisecting scientists and to limit the influence of public opinion in the laboratory to administrative procedure and scheduled inspection. The focus on anaesthesia was connected with discussions of what supporting infrastructures were required to ensure proper ethical procedure was carried out by scientists. In contrast to the much studied polarisation in British society between pro- and antivivisectionists after 1876, we understand the 1875 Commission as a conflict amongst scientists themselves, while also being an intra-class conflict amongst the ruling class (French in Antivivisection and medical science in Victorian society, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975).

...More

Citation URI

data.isiscb.org/p/isis/citation/CBB174441189

This citation is part of the Isis database.

Citations Indexes

Similar Citations

Article Tarquin Holmes; (2021)
Science, sensitivity and the sociozoological scale: Constituting and complicating the human-animal boundary at the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection and beyond (/p/isis/citation/CBB079918903/)

Book Charles Darwin; Frederick Burkhardt; James A. Secord; (2015)
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 23: 1875 (/p/isis/citation/CBB427468341/)

Essay Review Brinbacher, Dieter; (2002)
Morality beyond humanity (/p/isis/citation/CBB000330461/)

Book Libell, Monica; (2001)
Morality Beyond Humanity: Schopenhauer, Grysanowski, and Schweitzer on Animal Ethics (/p/isis/citation/CBB000330462/)

Thesis Shira Dina Shmuely; (2017)
The Bureaucracy of Empathy: Vivisection and the Question of Animal Pain in Britain, 1876-1912 (/p/isis/citation/CBB762286081/)

Thesis Mitch Goldsmith; (2023)
The Unfinished Business of Anna Kingsford: Science, Enchantment, and Experiments on Animals (/p/isis/citation/CBB697646509/)

Article Tone Druglitrø; (July 2018)
“Skilled Care” and the Making of Good Science (/p/isis/citation/CBB697868030/)

Article Tone Druglitrø; (2022)
Procedural Care: Licensing Practices in Animal Research (/p/isis/citation/CBB143588294/)

Article Gail Davies; Beth Greenhough; Pru Hobson-West; Robert G. W. Kirk; (July 2018)
Science, Culture, and Care in Laboratory Animal Research: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the History and Future of the 3Rs (/p/isis/citation/CBB754061622/)

Article Lene Koch; Mette N. Svendsen; (May 2015)
Negotiating Moral Value: A Story of Danish Research Monkeys and Their Humans (/p/isis/citation/CBB281898023/)

Article Yolandi M. Coetser; (2022)
An African ethical perspective on South Africa's regulatory frameworks governing animals in research (/p/isis/citation/CBB859098442/)

Article Ashley Shew; Keith Johnson; (2018)
Companion Animals as Technologies in Biomedical Research (/p/isis/citation/CBB234825566/)

Article Boddice, Rob; (2011)
Vivisecting Major: A Victorian Gentleman Scientist Defends Animal Experimentation, 1876--1885 (/p/isis/citation/CBB001034548/)

Article Preece, Rod; (2003)
Darwinism, Christianity, and the Great Vivisection Debate (/p/isis/citation/CBB000774479/)

Chapter Marsden, Simon; (2007)
Dr. Moreau's Crimes: H. G. Wells and the Victorian Vivisection Controversy (/p/isis/citation/CBB001035836/)

Article Carmela Morabito; (2017)
David Ferrier’s Experimental Localization of Cerebral Functions and the Anti-Vivisection Debate (/p/isis/citation/CBB823414183/)

Book Rob Boddice; (2022)
Humane Professions: The Defense of Experimental Medicine, 1876–1914 (/p/isis/citation/CBB789019091/)

Article Bittel, Carla Jean; (2005)
Science, Suffrage, and Experimentation: Mary Putnam Jacobi and the Controversy over Vivisection in Late Nineteenth-Century America (/p/isis/citation/CBB000800010/)

Chapter Guerrini, Anita; (2008)
Animal Experiments and Anitvivisection Debates in the 1820s (/p/isis/citation/CBB000760393/)

Article Shira Shmuely; (2020)
Curare: The Poisoned Arrow that Entered the Laboratory and Sparked a Moral Debate (/p/isis/citation/CBB410699994/)