Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 41-51 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science |
| Volume | 89 |
| Early online date | 30 Jul 2021 |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2021 |
Abstract
Despite aspirations to substitute animal experimentation with alternative methods and recent progress in the area of non-animal approaches, such as organoïds and organ(s)-on-a-chip technologies, there is no extensive replacement of animal-based research in biomedicine. In this paper, I will analyse this state of affairs with reference to key institutional and socio-epistemic barriers for the development and use of non-animal approaches in the context of biomedical research in Europe. I will argue that there exist several factors that inhibit change in this context. In particular, there is what I call “scientific inertia”, i.e. a certain degree of conservatism in scientific practice regarding the development and use of non-animal approaches to replace animal experimentation. This type of inertia is facilitated by socio-epistemic characteristics of animal-based research in the life sciences and is a key factor in understanding the status quo in biomedical research. The underlying reasons for scientific inertia have not received sufficient attention in the literature to date because the phenomenon transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries in the study of animal experimentation. This paper addresses this issue and seeks to contribute to a better understanding of scientific inertia by using a methodology that looks at the interplay of institutional, epistemic, and regulatory aspects of animal-based research.
Keywords
- 3R principle, ELSI, Non-animal method, Scientific repertoire, Social epistemology
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History and Philosophy of Science
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 89, 10.2021, p. 41-51.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Scientific inertia in animal-based research in biomedicine
AU - Lohse, Simon
N1 - Funding Information: My work on this article has been funded by R2N , Federal State of Lower Saxony (Germany).
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Despite aspirations to substitute animal experimentation with alternative methods and recent progress in the area of non-animal approaches, such as organoïds and organ(s)-on-a-chip technologies, there is no extensive replacement of animal-based research in biomedicine. In this paper, I will analyse this state of affairs with reference to key institutional and socio-epistemic barriers for the development and use of non-animal approaches in the context of biomedical research in Europe. I will argue that there exist several factors that inhibit change in this context. In particular, there is what I call “scientific inertia”, i.e. a certain degree of conservatism in scientific practice regarding the development and use of non-animal approaches to replace animal experimentation. This type of inertia is facilitated by socio-epistemic characteristics of animal-based research in the life sciences and is a key factor in understanding the status quo in biomedical research. The underlying reasons for scientific inertia have not received sufficient attention in the literature to date because the phenomenon transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries in the study of animal experimentation. This paper addresses this issue and seeks to contribute to a better understanding of scientific inertia by using a methodology that looks at the interplay of institutional, epistemic, and regulatory aspects of animal-based research.
AB - Despite aspirations to substitute animal experimentation with alternative methods and recent progress in the area of non-animal approaches, such as organoïds and organ(s)-on-a-chip technologies, there is no extensive replacement of animal-based research in biomedicine. In this paper, I will analyse this state of affairs with reference to key institutional and socio-epistemic barriers for the development and use of non-animal approaches in the context of biomedical research in Europe. I will argue that there exist several factors that inhibit change in this context. In particular, there is what I call “scientific inertia”, i.e. a certain degree of conservatism in scientific practice regarding the development and use of non-animal approaches to replace animal experimentation. This type of inertia is facilitated by socio-epistemic characteristics of animal-based research in the life sciences and is a key factor in understanding the status quo in biomedical research. The underlying reasons for scientific inertia have not received sufficient attention in the literature to date because the phenomenon transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries in the study of animal experimentation. This paper addresses this issue and seeks to contribute to a better understanding of scientific inertia by using a methodology that looks at the interplay of institutional, epistemic, and regulatory aspects of animal-based research.
KW - 3R principle
KW - ELSI
KW - Non-animal method
KW - Scientific repertoire
KW - Social epistemology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111517477&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.06.016
DO - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.06.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 34333156
AN - SCOPUS:85111517477
VL - 89
SP - 41
EP - 51
JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
SN - 0039-3681
ER -