Skip to main content

Which Patient Takes Centre Stage? Placing Patient Voices in Animal Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
GeoHumanities and Health

Abstract

The growth of personalised medicine and patient partnerships in biomedical research are reshaping both the emotional and material intersections between human patients and animal research. Through tracing the creative work of patients, publics, scientists, clinicians, artists, film-makers, and campaigning groups this chapter explores how ‘patient voices’ are being rearticulated and represented around animal research. The figure of ‘the patient’ has been a powerful actor in arguments around animal research, mostly ‘spoken for’ by formal organisations, especially in publicity material making ethical justifications for the need and funding of medical research. Here, patient voices make corporeal needs legible, gather expectations and resources, and provide the horizon for embodying future hopes. However, the accessibility of digital media, alongside local institutional experiments in openness, is creating alternative spaces for voicing patient interfaces with animal research. On research establishment websites, and elsewhere, patients’ perspectives are emerging in short films, taking up positions as narrators, tour guides, and commentators, inviting the public to follow them into these previously inaccessible spaces. The embodied experience of patients, sometimes severely affected by the current absences in biomedical research, are used to authorise their presence in these places, and allow them to ask questions of animal researchers. The films are powerful and emotional vehicles for voicing patient experiences and opening up animal research. They also refigure the affective responsibilities around animal research, resituating a public debate around ethics within the body of the patient. The future expectations personified in the abstract figure of the patient, are rendered turbulent in the ambiguous corporeal encounter between human and animals undergoing similar experiences of suffering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://vimeo.com/33170755, last accessed 24/09/2018.

  2. 2.

    ‘Patient’ is a complex, dynamic and relational category, contestable and temporally located, sharing boundaries and imbrications with other advocacy movements (Epstein 2008). Here, our use of ‘patient’ is as a gateway to consider the entanglements of a wide range of people with animal research, and consider how people’s experiences of, and encounters with, disability and illness acts to influence attitudes to animal research. The growing transparency of animal research produces new entanglements and knowledges, producing an arena of debate amongst all those who are directly or indirectly involved in such networks (Callon and Rabeharisoa 2004).

  3. 3.

    This research is part of the wider Wellcome Trust collaborative award on the Animal Research Nexus (205,393/Z/16/Z). This programme explores the changing historical and social relations around animal research from different perspectives, including the growth of patient and public involvement and engagement within the practices of animal research. For further information see https://animalresearchnexus.org/ (last accessed 28/09/2018).

  4. 4.

    Our professional and personal backgrounds are diverse: spanning veterinary science, art, human geography, policy, gender, sexuality and experiences of acute and chronic illness. We do not name the different descriptions of films that we have authored. Whilst patient voices have the potential to radically remake these interfaces around animal research, this will not be achieved through allocating meanings in ways that promise the authenticity, fixity or the singular truth of voice.

  5. 5.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8fDYCEEE0Q, last accessed 24/09/2018.

  6. 6.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2RRnwtnsjw, last accessed 24/09/2018.

  7. 7.

    https://vimeo.com/118265337 – last accessed 24/09/2018.

  8. 8.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGr44gjkoxc last accessed 24/09/2018.

  9. 9.

    Davies and Gorman are doing further in-depth interviews and ethnographic work, as part of the Animal Research Nexus programme, with engagement professionals, researchers, patient groups and publics to understand how PPI may be able to engage meaningfully around animal research. We would like to thank those medical research charities, communications organizations and research institutions whose conversations have informed our reflections in this chapter here.

References

  • Animal Aid. (2017). We, the patients, say no to animal experiments! Animal Aid. https://www.animalaid.org.uk/the-issues/our-campaigns/animal-experiments/victims-charity-campaign/patients-say-no-animal-experiments/. Accessed 1 Oct 2018.

  • Ankeny, R. A., Leonelli, S., Nelson, N. C., & Ramsden, E. (2014). Making organisms model human behavior: Situated models in North-American alcohol research, since 1950. Science in Context, 27, 485–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boenink, M., van der Scheer, L., Garcia, E., & Burg, S. v. d. (2018). Giving voice to patients: Developing a discussion method to involve patients in translational research. NanoEthics, 12, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health & Illness, 4, 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callard, F., Rose, D., & Wykes, T. (2012). Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: Involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expectations, 15, 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2004). Gino’s lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role. Economy and Society, 33, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2005). The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2575–2584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, L.-A., & Atkinson, S. (2018). Imagined futures in living with multiple conditions: Positivity, relationality and hopelessness. Social Science & Medicine, 198, 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam, M. S., & Svendsen, M. N. (2017). Treating pigs: Balancing standardisation and individual treatments in translational neonatology research. BioSocieties, 13, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G., Greenhough, B., Hobson-West, P., & Kirk, R. G. W. (2018). Science, culture, and care in laboratory animal research: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the history and future of the 3Rs. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43, 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918757034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1981). Dissemination. New York: Continuum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (2008). Patient groups and health movements. In The handbook of science and technology studies (Vol. 3, pp. 499–539). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson, M., & Tritter, J. Q. (2017). Disentangling patient and public involvement in healthcare decisions: Why the difference matters. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39, 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganchoff, C. (2008). Speaking for stem cells: Biomedical activism and emerging forms of patienthood. In S. Chambré & M. Goldner (Eds.), Patients, consumers and civil society (Vols. 1-0, Vol. 10, pp. 225–245). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J., Gaskill, B., Weber, E., Ahloy Dallaire, J., & Pritchett-Corning, K. (2017). Introducing Therioepistemology: The study of how knowledge is gained from animal research. Lab Animal, 46, 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, A., Britten, N., & Lynch, J. (2012). Theoretical directions for an emancipatory concept of patient and public involvement. Health, 16, 531–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhough, B., & Roe, E. (2011). Ethics, space, and somatic sensibilities: Comparing relationships between scientific researchers and their human and animal experimental subjects. Environment and Planning D, 29, 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, L. (2017). The political life of cancer: Beatriz da Costa’s dying for the other and anti-cancer survival kit. Environmental Humanities, 9, 230–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzei, L. A. (2008). An impossibly full voice. In Voice in qualitative inquiry (pp. 57–74). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, C., & Hobson-West, P. (2016). Opening up animal research and science–society relations? A thematic analysis of transparency discourses in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 791–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M. (2009). Publics performing publics: Of PiGs, PiPs and politics. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 617–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pankevich, D., Wizemann, T., Mazza, A.-M., & Altevogt, B. (Eds.). (2012). International animal research regulations: Impact on neuroscience research. Washington: National Academies Press (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, A., Bell, S. L., Kyle, R. G., & Andrews, G. J. (2018). Hopeful adaptation’ in health geographies: Seeking health and wellbeing in times of adversity. Social Science & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.021. Accessed 22 Mar 2019.

  • Rothwell, N. (2006). Public engagement on the use of animals in biomedical research. In Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 38–43). London: Wellcome Trust Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, K. (2016). Towards a political animal geography? Political Geography, 50, 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2015.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stengers, I. (2011). Cosmopolitics I. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunder Rajan, K. (2017). Pharmocracy: Value, politics, and knowledge in global biomedicine. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tritter, J. Q. (2009). Revolution or evolution: The challenges of conceptualizing patient and public involvement in a consumerist world. Health Expectations, 12, 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Understanding Animal Research. (2017). Concordat on openness on animal research in the UK. Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK. http://concordatopenness.org.uk/. Accessed 1 Oct 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gail Davies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Davies, G., Gorman, R., Crudgington, B. (2020). Which Patient Takes Centre Stage? Placing Patient Voices in Animal Research. In: Atkinson, S., Hunt, R. (eds) GeoHumanities and Health. Global Perspectives on Health Geography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21406-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics