A key ambition in care studies has been to study care in practice and as practice. By turning towards practices, care studies has rendered visible and acknowledged important work that is not captured through looking at formal procedures or official and written materials, such as policy documents and medical protocols. In this literature, document materials and the written have often been seen as unable to demonstrate and address the ‘specificities of care’ (Mol et al., 2010, p. 9). We challenge this view by showing how pragmatically-oriented approaches can be extended to the procedural and formalized aspects of care practices. We draw upon fieldwork in the life sciences—comparative immunology—investigated through experiments on Atlantic cod (Gadus Morhua). How to care for fish is a contested domain; many uncertainties exist around how to care for fish so that legal requirements are met. We ask: How are existing legal and ethical principles and procedures put to work in cod immunology and animal research? By what document-practices and document-tools is care for cod in research negotiated and settled? How does the cod stand out as an object of care in the life sciences? Our article answers these questions by empirically teasing out how scientists navigate the terrain and arguing for the importance of bringing the document-based realities of animal research into analysis. We do this by delineating three different versions of care: procedural care, skilled care, and dispassionate care.
AnkenyR. A.LeonelliS. (2011). What’s so special about model organisms?Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(2), 313–323.
2.
AsdalK. (2014). Versions of milk and versions of care: The emergence of mother’s milk as an interested object and medicine as a form of dispassionate care. Science in Context, 27(2), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889714000088
AsdalK. (2018). ‘Interested methods’ and ‘versions of pragmatism’. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(4), 748–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918773446
5.
AsdalK.HuseT. (2023). Nature-made economy. Cod, Capital and the great economization of the ocean. The MIT Press.
6.
AsdalK.ReinertsenH. (2022). Doing document analysis: A practice-oriented method. Sage Publications.
7.
BirkeL.ArlukeA.MichaelM. (2007). The sacrifice: How scientific experiments transform animals and people. Purdue University Press.
8.
DamM. S.SvendsenM. N. (2018). Treating pigs: Balancing standardisation and individual treatments in translational neonatology research. BioSocieties, 13(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-017-0071-2
9.
DaviesG. (2012). Caring for the multiple and the multitude. Assembling animal welfare and enabling ethical critique. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(4), 623–638.
10.
DaviesG.GreenhoughB.Hobson-WestP.KirkR. 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(4), 603–621.
11.
de la BellacasaM. P. (2011). Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710380301
12.
de la BellacasaM. P. (2012). ‘Nothing comes without its world’: Thinking with care. The Sociological Review, 60(2), 197–216.
13.
DruglitrøT. (2018). ‘Skilled care’ and the making of good science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(4), 649–670.
FrieseC. (2013). Realizing potential in translational medicine: The uncanny emergence of care as science. Current Anthropology, 54(S7), S129–S138.
16.
GreenhoughB.RoeE. (2011). Ethics, space and somatic sensibilities: Comparing relationships between scientific researchers and their human subjects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(1), 47–66.
17.
GreenhoughB.RoeE. (2018). Exploring the role of animal technologists in implementing the 3Rs: An ethnographic investigation of the UK university sector. Science, Technology & Human Values, 43(4), 694–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917718066
18.
GreenhoughB.RoeE. (2019). Attuning to laboratory animals and telling stories: Learning animal geography research skills from animal technologists. Environment & Planning. D, Society & Space, 37(2), 367–384.
19.
GuslundN. C.SolbakkenM. H.BrieucM. S. O.JentoftS.KjetillS. J.Shuo-WangQ. (2020). Single cell transcriptome profiling of immune cell repertoire of the Atlantic cod which naturally lacks the major histocompatibility class II system. Frontiers in Immunology, 11, 559555.
20.
HarawayD. (2008). When species meet. Minnesota University Press.
21.
HarboeM.NatvigJ. B. (1984). Medisinsk immmunologi [Medical immunology]. Universitetsforlaget.
22.
HawkinsP.DennisonN.GoodmanG.HetheringtonS.Llywelyn-JonesS.SmithA. J. (2011). Guidance on the severity classification of scientific procedures involving fish: Report of a working group appointed by the Norwegian Consensus-platform for the replacement, reduction and refinement of animal experiments (Norecopa). Laboratory Animals, 45(4), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1258/la.2011.010181
23.
HolmbergT. (2011). Mortal love: Care practices in animal experimentation. Feminist Theory, 12(2), 147–163.
24.
HolmbergT.IdelandM. (2009). Transgenic silences: The rhetoric of comparisons and transgenic mice as ‘ordinary treasures’. BioSocieties, 4, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990044
25.
KirkR. G. W. (2018). Recovering the principles of humane experimental technique: The 3Rs and the human essence of animal research. Science, Technology and Human Values, 43(4), 622–648.
26.
LawJ. (2010). Care and killing. Tensions in veterinary practice. In MolA.MoserI.PolsJ. (Eds.), Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms (pp. 57–72). Transkript verlag.
27.
LawJ.LienM. (2017). The practices of fishy sentience. In AsdalK.DruglitrøT.HincliffeS. (Eds.), Humans, animals, and biopolitics: The more-than-human condition (pp. 30–47). Routledge.
28.
McLeodC.HartleyS. (2017). Responsibility and laboratory animal research governance. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(4), 723–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917727866
29.
MessageR.GreenhoughB. (2019). “But It’s Just a Fish”: Understanding the challenges of applying the 3Rs in laboratory aquariums in the UK. Animals, 9(12), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9121075
30.
MolA. (1998). Missing links, making links. On the performance of some atheroscleroses. In BergM.MolA. (Eds.), Differences in medicine (pp. 144–165). Duke University Press.
31.
MolA. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In LawJ.HassardJ. (Eds.), Actor-network theory and after (pp. 74–89). Blackwell.
32.
MolA. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.
33.
MolA. (2008). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. Routledge.
34.
MolA.LawJ. (2004). Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices. Duke University Press.
35.
MolA.MoserI.PolsJ. (2010). Care in practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Transkript verlag.
36.
MoserI. (2005). On becoming disabled and articulating alternatives. Cultural Studies, 19(6), 667–700.
37.
MoserI. (2011). Dementia and the limits to life: Anthropological sensibilities, STS interferences, and possibilities for action in care. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 36(5), 704–722.
38.
MoserI.ThygesenH. (2015). Exploring possibilities in telecare for ageing societies. In BarnesM.BrannellyT.WardL.WardN. (Eds.), Ethics of care: Critical advances in international perspective (pp. 111–124). Policy Press.
39.
Norwegian Food Safety Authority. (2021). Use of animals in research in 2021 [Bruk av dyr i forsøk i 2021]. mattilsynet.no.
40.
PilstrømL.WarrG. W.StrömbergS. (2005). Why is the antibody response of Atlantic cod so poor? The search for a genetic explanation. Fisheries Science, 71(5), 961–971.
41.
PolsJ. (2012). Care at a distance. On the closeness of technology. Amsterdam University Press.
42.
PolsJ. (2006). Washing the citizen: Washing, cleanliness and citizenship in mental health care. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 30, 77–104.
43.
RoeE.GreenhoughB. (2023). A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research. Social & Cultural Geography, 24(1), 49–66.
44.
SingletonV. (2012). When contexts meet: Feminism and accountability in UK cattle farming. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(4), 404–433.
45.
SharpL. A. (2019). Animal ethos. The morality of human-animal encounters in experimental lab science. University of California Press.
46.
StarB.NederbragtA. J.JentoftS.GrimholtU.MalstrømM.GregersT. F.RoungeT. B.PaulsenJ.SolbakkenM. H.SharmaA.LanzénA.WinerR.KnightJ.VogelJ.AkenB.AndersenØ.LagesenK.Tooming-KlunderudA.EdvardsenR.… JakobsenK. S. (2011). The genome sequence of Atlantic cod reveals a unique immune system. Nature, 477, 207–210.
47.
SuzukiW. (2021). Improvising care: Managing experimental animals at a Japanese laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 51(5), 729–749.
48.
ValverdeM. (2003a). Law’s dream of a common knowledge. Princeton University Press.
49.
ValverdeM. (2003b). Police science, British style: Pub licensing and knowledges of urban disorder. Economy and Society, 32(2), 234–252.
