When you can't find the words: Using body mapping to communicate patients' experiences of Long Covid.

The aim of this paper is to reflect on the value of body mapping in supporting patients to communicate their everyday experiences of Long Covid. Body maps are life-sized drawings of bodies and body mapping is used to discuss experiences through guided questions and answering those questions using colours, images and other prompts. This short paper focuses on the first of four body mapping workshops of this study, which was conducted in June 2023 in London with 4 participants in collaboration with Long Covid Support. Our preliminary results suggest i) body mapping can offer novel insights into patients' experiences of Long Covid, ii) the method may be effectively applied as a tool for patients to communicate their symptoms and overall experiences to practitioners, friends, and family members, and iii) body mapping may be adapted to offer peer support as part of Long Covid advocacy. This has significant potential application as a resource for healthcare professionals and patient-led peer support and Long Covid advocacy work.

Creating safety amidst chronic contamination: A mixed-method analysis of residents' experiences in a Southern Italian steel town.

This study analyses how residents create safety in Taranto, Italy, a city located next to one of the largest steel plants in Europe. Combining long-term ethnographic research with an online-based survey, our study shows that most respondents recognise and criticise the presence of environmental risks in their daily lives but encounter such risks in complex ways. Contrary to previous scholarship suggesting that pollution can result in alienating residents from their lived environment, this research shows that acute awareness of environmental risks does not necessarily undermine attachment to place but rather can co-exist with or even strengthen it. Our findings propose first that residents experience and understand environmental risk mostly through air pollution, but often situate risks outside of their own neighbourhood and inscribe different meanings to such risk. Second, residents mitigate environmental risk through practices aimed at creating safety, such as moving away from the industrial area or using everyday practices and reflecting on their responsibility for actions. Third, we argue that residents create safety through an attachment and entitlement to place and emotional detachment from pollution and institutional failures. Finally, in line with residents' concerns about safety and how to secure it, this study embraces a shift in its analytical focus from risk to the quest for safety. By doing so, it provides novel insights into environmental risk perception in industrially polluted areas and reveals the often-contradictory sentiments and practices that such areas invoke in residents.

Co-producing Human and Animal Experimental Subjects: Exploring the Views of UK COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants on Animal Testing.

Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: experimental subjects. We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research; (ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects; (iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak; and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science.

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

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.

New perspectives for teaching Culture of Care and their strengths and challenges.

Nurturing a culture of care remains a key strategy and needs to be well integrated in the education programmes for laboratory animal professionals. Addressing attitudes is a complex task that must ensure reflective learning approaches. Teaching strategies must facilitate a safe space to talk openly about emotions and caring responsibilities. We reflect on two training initiatives focusing on culture of care. Firstly, the 'Care-full Stories' tool, which uses fictionalised prompts (storytelling) to encourage participants to share their own stories from working in animal research. Feedback on its impact on establishing a safe space for sharing experiences and the importance of appreciating diverse perspectives between staff is discussed. Secondly, we provide feedback on the development of training approaches on animal research integrity and culture of care with low- middle-income international communities. Strategic targets addressing the multicultural diversity of the communities, recognising their specific needs and their access to resources, must be well defined. It is important to acknowledge the interconnection between people, animals and their shared natural environment when defining the culture of care concept and addressing the teaching approaches. We discuss both the positive outcomes and challenges of these two learning experiences to support innovation when planning tools for teaching culture of care. Accounting for 'how' and 'where' the training will be delivered remains key to its successful uptake and local sustainability. Supporting improved educational tools to ascertain why caring has an impact on our professional lives will have a direct impact on the wellbeing of laboratory animal professionals worldwide.

Edge cases in animal research law: Constituting the regulatory borderlands of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.

This paper explores how the boundaries of the UK's Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) are constituted, as illustrative of the rising importance of legal procedures around animal research and how these are continuously being challenged and questioned. Drawing on empirical work in animal research communities, we consider how it is decided whether activities are undertaken for an "experimental or other scientific purpose". We do this by focusing on "edge cases", where debates occur about whether to include an activity within A(SP)A's remit. We demonstrate that the boundaries of animal research regulation in the UK are products of past and present decisions, dependencies, and social relationships. Boundaries are therefore not clear-cut and fixed, but rather flexible and changing borderlands. We particularly highlight the roles of: historical precedent; the management of risk, workload, and cost; institutional and professional identities; and research design in constituting A(SP)A's edges. In doing so, we demonstrate the importance of paying attention to how, in practice, animal law requires a careful balance between adhering to legal paragraphs and allowing for discretion. This in turn has real-world implications for what and how science is done, who does it, and how animals are used in its service.

Out of the laboratory, into the field: perspectives on social, ethical and regulatory challenges in UK wildlife research.

Drawing on insights from qualitative social science research, this paper aims to prompt reflection on social, ethical and regulatory challenges faced by scientists undertaking invasive animal research in the field and propose ways of addressing these challenges to promote good care for animals and environments. In particular, we explore challenges relating to the management of (i) relationships with publics and stakeholders, who may be present at field sites or crucial to research success; (ii) ethical considerations not present in the laboratory, such as the impacts of research on populations and ecosystems; (iii) working under an array of regulations, which may operate in accordance with competing ethical principles or objectives; and (iv) relationships with regulators (especially vets), which may involve disagreements over ethics and expertise, especially because regulators may be more accustomed to overseeing research in the laboratory than the field. We argue that flexibility-at a personal and policy level-and respect for others' expertise emerged as two key ways of negotiating ethical challenges, fostering positive working relationships and promoting good care for individual animals and broader ecosystems. While our analysis focuses on the UK, we propose that many of these lessons are broadly applicable to international contexts. This article is part of the theme issue 'Measuring physiology in free-living animals (Part II)'.

Getting to grips with wildlife research by citizen scientists: What role for regulation?

Wildlife research by citizen scientists, involving the capture and handling of animals, provides clear scientific benefits, but also potential risks to animal welfare. We explore debates about how best to regulate such work to ensure that it is undertaken in an ethical manner.We focus on the UK as a case study, drawing on qualitative research and stakeholder engagement events. We show that because trapping and marking of certain species requires minimal licensing, training and justification, some argue for increased formal regulation to minimise risks to animal welfare. However, others have reflected on the already complex regulatory landscape affecting wildlife research, and have expressed concern that introducing additional formal regulations could potentially make citizen science working with wildlife more difficult. Informal regulation could therefore offer a preferable alternative.We set out three steps that could be taken to open up conversations about ethics and regulation of wildlife-focussed citizen science, in the UK and elsewhere: (a) take stock of wildlife-focussed citizen science in terms of numbers and harms to animal welfare; (b) assess the state of formal regulations and consider reforms; and (c) consider informal regulations as alternatives or additions to formal regulations.

Animal Research beyond the Laboratory: Report from a Workshop on Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs) in the UK.

Research involving animals that occurs outside the laboratory raises an array of unique challenges. With regard to UK legislation, however, it receives only limited attention in terms of official guidelines, support, and statistics, which are unsurprisingly orientated towards the laboratory environment in which the majority of animal research takes place. In September 2019, four social scientists from the Animal Research Nexus program gathered together a group of 13 experts to discuss nonlaboratory research under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (A(SP)A) of 1986 (mirroring European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU), which is the primary mechanism for regulating animal research in the UK. Such nonlaboratory research under the A(SP)A often occurs at Places Other than Licensed Establishments (POLEs). The primary objective of the workshop was to assemble a diverse group with experience across a variety of POLEs (e.g., wildlife field sites, farms, fisheries, veterinary clinics, zoos) to explore the practical, ethical, and regulatory challenges of conducting research at POLEs. While consensus was not sought, nor reached on every point of discussion, we collectively identified five key areas that we propose require further discussion and attention. These relate to: (1) support and training; (2) ethical review; (3) cultures of care, particularly in nonregulated research outside of the laboratory; (4) the setting of boundaries; and (5) statistics and transparency. The workshop generated robust discussion and thereby highlighted the value of focusing on the unique challenges posed by POLEs, and the need for further opportunities for exchanging experiences and sharing best practice relating to research projects outside of the laboratory in the UK and elsewhere.

Animal research nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health and animal welfare.

Animals used in biological research and testing have become integrated into the trajectories of modern biomedicine, generating increased expectations for and connections between human and animal health. Animal research also remains controversial and its acceptability is contingent on a complex network of relations and assurances across science and society, which are both formally constituted through law and informal or assumed. In this paper, we propose these entanglements can be studied through an approach that understands animal research as a nexus spanning the domains of science, health and animal welfare. We introduce this argument through, first, outlining some key challenges in UK debates around animal research, and second, reviewing the way nexus concepts have been used to connect issues in environmental research. Third, we explore how existing social sciences and humanities scholarship on animal research tends to focus on different aspects of the connections between scientific research, human health and animal welfare, which we suggest can be combined in a nexus approach. In the fourth section, we introduce our collaborative research on the animal research nexus, indicating how this approach can be used to study the history, governance and changing sensibilities around UK laboratory animal research. We suggest the attention to complex connections in nexus approaches can be enriched through conversations with the social sciences and medical humanities in ways that deepen appreciation of the importance of path-dependency and contingency, inclusion and exclusion in governance and the affective dimension to research. In conclusion, we reflect on the value of nexus thinking for developing research that is interdisciplinary, interactive and reflexive in understanding how accounts of the histories and current relations of animal research have significant implications for how scientific practices, policy debates and broad social contracts around animal research are being remade today.

"But It's Just a Fish": Understanding the Challenges of Applying the 3Rs in Laboratory Aquariums in the UK.

Adopting a social science perspective and qualitative methodology on the problem of laboratory fish welfare, this paper examines some underlying social factors and drivers that influence thinking, priorities and implementation of fish welfare initiatives and the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) for fish. Drawing on original qualitative interviews with stakeholders, animal technologists and scientists who work with fish-especially zebrafish-to illustrate the case, this paper explores some key social factors influencing the take up of the 3Rs in this context. Our findings suggest the relevance of factors including ambient cultural perceptions of fish, disagreements about the evidence on fish pain and suffering, the discourse of regulators, and the experiences of scientists and animal technologists who develop and put the 3Rs into practice. The discussion is focused on the UK context, although the main themes will be pertinent around the world.

Attuning to laboratory animals and telling stories: Learning animal geography research skills from animal technologists.

Posthumanism has challenged the social sciences and humanities to rethink anthopocentricism within the cultures and societies they study and to take account of more-than-human agencies and perspectives. This poses key methodological challenges, including a tendency for animal geographies to focus very much on the human side of human-animal relations and to fail to acknowledge animals as embodied, lively, articulate political subjects. In this paper, we draw on recent ethnographic work, observing and participating in the care of research animals and interviewing the animal technologists, to contribute to the understandings of life within the animal house. In so doing, the paper makes three key arguments. Firstly, that studying how animal technologists perform everyday care and make sense of their relationships with animals offers useful insights into the specific skills, expertise and relationships required in order to study human-animal relations. Secondly, that animal technologists are keenly aware of the contested moralities which emerge in animal research environments and can offer an important position from which to understand this. Thirdly, that storytelling (exemplified by the stories told by animal technologists) is a useful resource for animal geographers to engage with complexity in human-animal relations.

Exploring the Role of Animal Technologists in Implementing the 3Rs: An Ethnographic Investigation of the UK University Sector.

The biomedical industry relies on the skills of animal technologists (ATs) to put laboratory animal welfare into practice. This is the first study to explore how this is achieved in relation to their participation in implementing refinement and reduction, two of the three key guiding ethical principles--the "3Rs"--of what is deemed to be humane animal experimentation. The interpretative approach contributes to emerging work within the social sciences and humanities exploring care and ethics in practice. Based on qualitative analysis of participant observation within animal research facilities in UK universities, in-depth interviews with ATs, facility managers, and other stakeholders, and analysis of regulatory guidelines, we draw a contrast between the minimum required of ATs by law and how their care work not only meets but often exceeds these requirements. We outline how ATs constitute a key source of innovation and insight into the refinement of animal care and the reduction of animal use, hitherto not formally acknowledged. Exploring AT care work as an example of ethics in practice makes an original contribution to broader debates within health care and animal welfare about how technology, regulation, and behavior can foster and sustain a "culture of care".

Fear, family and the placing of emotion: Black women's responses to a breast cancer awareness intervention.

This paper is based upon findings from the qualitative element of a mixed-methods study on the response of Black women aged 25-50 to a public health intervention related to breast cancer. The focus groups were conducted in the London Borough of Hackney, UK between 2013 and 2016, and were part of an evaluation of the effectiveness of a breast awareness DVD. While the content of the DVD was generally well-received by the participants, the focus group discussions revealed a complex and, at times, contradictory response to the women's construction as an 'at risk' community. As the paper highlights, for many of the women, breast cancer remains a disease of whiteness and the information provided in the DVD prompted a range of emotional responses; from anxiety and fear to a desire to become more knowledgeable and active in the promotion of self-care. As the paper argues, of particular importance to the women was the need to feel a much stronger emotional connection to the information presented in the DVD. The paper concludes by arguing that placing greater emphasis on feeling and emotion is an important dimension of future research in this area.

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Evaluating a DVD promoting breast cancer awareness among black women aged 25-50†years in East London.

BACKGROUND: The mean age of presentation for breast cancer among black women is substantially earlier than their white counterparts. Black women also present with adverse prognostic factors that have major clinical implications, including lower survival. To pilot the use of a 6 min DVD on breast cancer in young (under 50 years) black women, to raise awareness and examine the impact of the DVD on increased consultation and referral rates among these women. METHODS: Two general practices (intervention practices) in the Hackney area were randomised to have the DVD mailed to all black women aged 25-50 years registered with the practices, and two practices to no intervention (control practices). EMIS data was used to compare consultation rates preintervention and postintervention, in the intervention as well as control practices. Interviews with practice staff and focus groups with patients in participating practices provided qualitative data on the study context and DVD effectiveness. RESULTS: A trend of declining consultations for breast symptoms was observed (-22% and -31% among non-black women in the control and intervention practices, and -23% among black women in the control practice) except among the target population of black women aged 25-50 years for the DVD in the intervention practices, which saw an increase of 28% in consultations. The qualitative data indicated that the DVD was well received in the target population, and suggested further ways of disseminating awareness messages and overcoming barriers to help-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot results suggest that the strategy of distributing the DVD may increase consultations for breast problems.