This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Michael, M. Articles by Birke, L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Accounting for Animal Experiments: Identity and Disreputable "Others"

University of Lancaster

Lynda Birke

University of Warwick

This article considers how scientists involved in animal experimentation attempt to defend their practices. Interviews with over 40 scientists revealed that, over and above direct criticisms of the antivivisection lobby, scientists used a number of discursive strategies to demonstrate that critics of animal experimentation are ethically and epistemologically infenor to British scientific practitioners. The scientists portrayed a series of negative "others" such as foreign scientists, farmers, and pet owners. In this manner, they attempted to create a "socioethical domain" which rhetorically insulated them from criticism while simultaneously problematizing the critiques of the anti- animal-experimentation public. Some of the implications for relations between science and the public, especially regarding scientific credibility, are discussed.

Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 19, No. 2, 189-204 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/016224399401900204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Asdal Subjected to parliament: the laboratory of experimental medicine and the animal body. Social Studies of Science, December 1, 2008; 38(6): 899 - 917. [Abstract] [PDF]