Abstract
The EU adopted Directive 2010/63/EU, thereby creating an instrument for legally implementing effective measures to regulate animal experimentation. In this framework, the 3Rs principle for replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal experiments proposed by Russell and Burch (1959) is of paramount importance. The highest goal of the 3Rs can be understood as a Culture of Care (CoC), entailing complete renunciation of sentient beings as test subjects. The implementation of a CoC is explicitly mentioned in Recital 31 of the EU-Directive. This article elaborates on historical underpinnings of the CoC concept and uses qualitative social research to trace its characteristics. Data were based on non-standardized survey procedures (topic-oriented, guideline-based expert interviews) and were collected at the management, scientific, supervisory and care levels in relation to animal experimentation. The goal of the qualitative approach is to understand contexts, conditions, strategies, and consequences of the CoC and depict them as a theoretical model.
The 3Rs in the Context of a Culture of Care
Animal-based experimental research is a disputed area of scientific research that is weighted differently depending on the (disciplinary) perspective. Compared to Human-Animal Studies, which presents relationships between humans and animals in a broad and open way, the laboratory animal science community increasingly emphasizes the so-called 3Rs principles, or their deeper specification or differentiation, in analyses (Kirk, 2018; Russow, 2002; Tannenbaum & Bennett, 2015).
The 3Rs principles correspond to the core concept of the 1959 work, The Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques by William Russell and Rex Burch. These British scientists state that every animal experiment must be replaced by an alternative procedure (Replace). If this is not possible, the smallest necessary number of animals should be used (Reduce). In the experiment itself, laboratory animals should have to endure as little pain, suffering, or damage as possible. Therefore, all procedures on animals should be refined by reducing stress as well as by an obligatory promotion of wellbeing (Refine).
The original 3Rs principles described by Russell and Burch (1959) follow humanistic roots. Most biomedical researchers have a basic understanding of the concept of the 3Rs – although few have read Russell and Burch’s original writing or adapted the concept to their own field of work, nor do many consider it to have indisputable value (Tannenbaum & Bennett, 2015). This is evident from the observation that numbers of laboratory animals used have barely changed over past decades and that replacement has not yet been given the priority it merits. A more in-depth analysis of Russell and Burch’s work reveals possibilities for analyzing the complexity of human-animal relationships, which go far beyond pragmatic questions of laboratory animal use. Additionally, Russell and Burch (1959) implicitly refer to organizational culture, parallels, and connections to the concept of a Culture of Care already present in their work, and include the rejection of philosophies that deny animal consciousness. The sustained realization and implementation of the 3Rs concept demands a paradigm shift, with the goal of completely ending the use of sentient beings in research (Russell & Burch, 1959).
The path to this goal is characterized by factors including socialization of individuals engaged in animal research and their individual attitudes toward animals. Russell and Burch (1959) argue that the entire field must practice inclusion and researchers must reflect on their approaches by acknowledging animal consciousness and individuality and taking these into account.
The multitude of diverse, interdisciplinary debates in this field contribute to the fact that established organizational culture(s) of animal-based experimental research are reflected and a discussion and (self-)reflection on the Culture of Care emerges (Brown et al., 2018; Gorman & Davies, 2020; Kirk, 2018; Russow, 2002; Tannenbaum & Bennett, 2015; Williams, 2021).
The term “Culture of Care” (hereafter CoC) derived in Germany from nursing science (Ferrara, 2020). However, in practice, the term only appears in culturally sensitive care. It is characterized by trust-building words, gestures, moments, and touches, and is linked to an inner attitude. It holds that people, regardless of their worldview, origin, or social position, are valued and treated with empathy and compassion (Thieme Group, 2018). When transferred to human-animal relationships, it becomes clear that CoC is materially and immaterially created by humans.
Current engagement with CoC in Germany is not widespread. At present, it is largely based on experience or draws on research from organizational sociology and organizational psychology. Thus, on one hand, essential elements such as one’s own values, the creation of internal guiding principles, or the commitment to adhere to certain behaviors (such as commitment to good scientific practice) characterize the specific culture of an organization. On the other hand, an organization can already be characterized as a culture in which togetherness, worldview, and the dissemination of value, norms, and rules provide a guide that structure, orders, and standardizes collective practices in acting, thinking, feeling, wanting, and desiring (Spisak, 2018).
In Germany, this circumstance is also reflected in a recent amendment to the German Animal Protection Act. To strengthen protection of animals used for scientific purposes, all member states of the European Union were required in 2013 to implement the EU Directive 2010/63. Specifically for this purpose, the Federal Republic of Germany enacted the Animal Welfare Act and issued the Animal Welfare Experimental Animal Ordinance. In 2018, the regular review of the implementation of EU requirements took place and Germany was accused of insufficient implementation. The EU criticized the incorrect transposition of EU animal experimentation law into German law. Among other things, it also criticized inadequate implementation of the 3Rs concept. A corresponding infringement procedure was initiated (Deutscher Bundestag 19/16878, 2020). In June 2021, the sixth law amending the German Animal Welfare Act came into force, and applied from January 2022, with some notable changes regarding laboratory animals. It emphasized that conditions for laboratory animals must be constantly improved and that the animal protection committee, which must be convened institutionally, had to be reconstituted. It is explicitly stated that persons entrusted with care of laboratory animals must be appointed by the committee (Animal Welfare Experimental Animals Ordinance § 6). Additionally, the number of animals used for experimental purposes must be reduced, and potential impacts of experimentation minimized through appropriate refinement measures. It also calls for the replacement of animal experiments with alternatives. The implementation of the 3Rs concept by establishing a “Climate of Care” is explicitly mentioned in recital 31 of the EU Directive but has not yet been conclusively established in implementation. Consequently, all levels involved in animal experimentation are responsible for a successful CoC and must be considered in research practice. Although the German Animal Welfare Act does not designate a CoC as such, it already provides a guide for responding to legal requirements and ethical concerns.
In conclusion, we assume that a CoC describes a complex mosaic, closely connected to the 3Rs principles but not yet conclusively anchored in the structures of animal-based experimental research of the individual organizations involved. The understanding of a CoC by individuals of the experimental animal science community in Germany is currently a blind spot. This is the point of departure for the present article. With help of qualitative expert interviews with persons from different laboratories throughout Germany, we analyzed which contexts, conditions, strategies, and consequences are understood as characteristics for a CoC. We focused on the individual perceptions of interviewees from the different levels of an institution (management, scientific, animal nursing, supervisory). The results are summarized in accordance with the theoretical reception of the concept.
Culture of Care – A Theoretical Approach
The first publications on the topic of CoC date back to 2002. The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee in New Zealand developed CoC guidelines, paving the way for discussion of the term and the aspects of organizational culture already mentioned. Although this initial version of the concept seems very rudimentary, focusing particularly on institutional work processes, staff development at various levels involved, and animal welfare, an increasing number of analyses from various disciplines have addressed this area, which is closely linked to philosophy and sociology.
Gorman and Davies (2020) describe CoC as an “environment which is informed by societal expectations of respectful and humane attitudes toward animals used in research” (p. 126). This refers to understandings that practice of care is synonymous with practical care work and is less grounded in the emotional and ethical work of caring for welfare. Similarly, Robinson et al. (2019) state that a CoC represents a (social) organizational development process that is closely tied to staff development. In a practical application to animal-based experimental research, this means, firstly, that a multitude of actors in the organizational model are in complex interactive relationships. Secondly, a reflective view is needed if animals are to be considered in a participatory manner within a Culture of Care. This requires a re-modeling of values and convictions in addition to profound organizational change. Thirdly, this in turn depends on employees developing a supra-disciplinary attitude, as only in this way can (inclusive) organizational development with people and animals be achieved collectively (Behrisch, 2015). In addition to the international Culture of Care Network (2018), Brown (2014) and Klein and Bayne (2007) write that components such as communication; appreciation of people and animals; and an attitude of professionalism are essential for implementing a CoC.
The concept of a CoC is characterized by the following hallmarks: (a) Commitment to the implementation of the 3Rs; (b) Creation of an appreciative work atmosphere; (c) Institutional commitment on behalf of nonhumans (management plays a key role here); (d) Motivating and fostering creativity among all employees; (e) Barrier-free communication within and between all levels of an organization; (f) Remodeling of values, beliefs, attitudes; (g) Professional and interactional support of all actors; (h) Strengthening the self-organization of individuals; (i) Lifelong learning in the sense of ongoing training programs at all levels; (j) Appreciation of people and animals (Brown et al., 2018; Kunda, 2006). Positive relationships with caregivers have proven effects on animal stressors; they can reduce abnormal behavior, increase species-appropriate behavior, and promote coping skills that help mitigate stress reactivity to new objects or situations (Rennie & Buchanan-Smith, 2006). Positive interactions with animals lead to increased morale and job satisfaction among caregivers, resulting in better care and improved animal wellbeing (Waitt et al., 2002). Similarly, training can reduce anxiety and stress in the animal.
Consequently, a CoC is to be understood as a transformation of existing routines and procedures, characterized by dialogical negotiation and reconceptualization at all levels. This means that management, scientists, nurses, and supervisors are all considered factors in the implementation of the 3Rs concept in general and the implementation of a CoC in particular.
Current debates on the concept of a CoC show that the animal perspective – that is, their agency in the context of experimental research – is largely ignored (Robinson et al., 2019). It is a major shortcoming of the concept that consideration of animals does not go beyond a broad discussion of wellbeing. Ambivalences in animal research prompt the fundamental questioning of the use of animals in research, but this point does not appear in discussions of CoC (Sezgin, 2012). This means that the possible exclusion of animals from research does not arise in present implementations of CoC, even in the context of Russell and Burch (1959).
Methodological Research Design
Since this area has been under-researched in Germany, we chose an explorative approach. To map individual understandings and the possible implementation of a CoC from the perspective of professionals, we conducted topic-oriented, guideline-based expert interviews on the basis of a non-standardized survey procedure. Between October 2020 and January 2021, we interviewed 15 experts in animal-based research from laboratories throughout Germany.
All interviewees were employees at institutions actively involved in animal-based research. They worked with species mentioned in the German animal protection ordinance. It should be noted, however, that the so-called “mouse model” occurred most frequently among the interviewees. Some were also entrusted with the sacrifice of animals. Field access was conducted by stakeholders in compliance with the ethical guidelines of the German Sociological Association. Interviews were conducted at different levels (management, scientific, care, nursing) in German and translated verbatim into English. Through the insights and perspectives of the interviewees, we mapped what belongs to a CoC from a constructivist perspective, and what does not (Rosenthal, 2011).
To develop a theoretical model from the qualitative data of the characteristics of a CoC for Germany, adherence to the quality criteria of consistency, comprehensibility, generality, and control was important. These enable logical conclusions that combine induction, deduction, and hypothesis generation (Glaser & Strauss, 1998; Kelle & Kluge, 1999), and that represent a “middle range” theory situated between working hypotheses and all-encompassing theories (Glaser & Strauss, 1998).
Analysis with grounded theory using MAXQDA allowed for data collection from expert interviews to be conducted through theoretical sampling and to be simultaneously coded and analyzed. This process is guided by theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1998) and highlights the relevance of both the data collected and the relevant theory. Consequently, theory generation took place within the research process and was established through recurrent questions to the material (Strauss, 1991). Categories were sought (Kelle & Kluge, 1999) and related to each other until theoretical saturation was reached (Strauss & Corbin, 1996). Strauss and Corbin’s (1996) strategy of viewing the data as always evolving was followed (1996). As part of the analysis, the data were first deconstructed using codes (Brüsemeister, 2008), where dimensions of categories emerged, and commonalities and differences were mapped. This resulted in an interlocking of open and axial coding. The selection of codes affected the subsequent categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1996).
Results Across Organizational Levels in Animal Research
The results of the qualitative interviews show a differentiated picture with relevant commonalities. For a better understanding, we divided the results into organizational levels and present the relevant results from these. This is followed by an overarching conclusion. This approach enables a theoretically based heuristic to map the width of the field and the perspective of each level.
Overall, it became apparent that individual knowledge of the concept of a CoC resulted, on one hand, from the decisions of an actor in the case group, and on the other hand, from the given legal and organizational structures. However, it must be noted that the term “Culture of Care” was not always explicitly mentioned as such and the described characteristics were not always coupled with the term. For example, theoretical characteristics of a CoC, such as animal welfare or communication, were mentioned as indicators of good science and animal welfare without being directly assigned to CoC as a marker. This aspect was notable in all interviews, as the design of the actual culture seemed to be little differentiated. This illustrates a discrepancy between the theoretical reception in the scientific community and the practical implementation in Germany. Those markers mentioned that are relevant to a CoC were nevertheless highlighted and supported by verbatim quotes from the participants that emerged in the interview discussions.
Management Level
The management level clearly showed that it was not very familiar with the term “Culture of Care.” For example, a professor admitted that “Funnily enough, this, now, is the first time I’ve heard it. I also looked it up, the idea behind it. It’s something that to me is logical common sense. I already live the idea behind it.” The quote broadly illustrates the management-level understanding that a CoC is already in practice, without naming it as such. The interviews show that this is also characterized as an expression of the administrative and legal processes and is evaluated based on personal values:
For me, Culture of Care means first of all that one does not do what one has always done, but that one looks right and left for alternatives, seeks discussions with colleagues or other scientists who work in a similar field and use other methodologies. It is very important to clarify whether there is perhaps another possibility than the one you have always used so far. So that’s the most crucial thing, not just doing in your routine what you’ve always done, but really looking in all directions. (Working group leader)
This working group leader stated that it is already clear what a CoC pursues in its objective and in the context of the 3Rs principle. It is true that they do not mention the CoC goal of completely renouncing testing on sentient beings. However, the need to explore alternatives is relevant and is classified as a CoC sub-area.
Compared to other levels interviewed, the management level was more inclined to address sources of error that they felt were less professionalized and which, in their opinion, contradicted a successful CoC and the implementation of the 3Rs:
The most glaring impact is that research results are generated, and animals are used for them that actually have no value because they are based on a false premise. Then the animals are effectively useless, at best dead, at worst subjected to some painful or stressful procedure. Something has come out of it – in the sense of something has been published in the end – but it has actually contributed nothing to the actual gain in knowledge. (Manager of an animal house)
Although this reveals research methodology problems, management-level interviewees also noted that pressure to publish and uncertain employment opportunities would hinder the implementation of a CoC in Germany, making it difficult to achieve the level of reflection concerning the continued use of laboratory animals deemed necessary by the management. The implementation of the ultimate goal was thus deadlocked:
It doesn’t only have to do with animals, it’s also got something to do with people. I think everyone who does animal experiments sooner or later has a crisis. I’ve experienced these crises more often in my life and actually not a month goes by where I don’t ask myself, “Can one actually justify this?” (Professor)
The agency of animals was also addressed again as part of the reflection processes: “The individuality of the laboratory animals, which we have tried to eliminate for decades, is still there” (Professor). The crises described by the long-time professor and the assumption that animal individuality impacts research is seldom addressed in the current reception of the CoC by the experimental animal science community or in the interviews. Consequently, an aspect that goes beyond mere care is again left out, and the individual parameters of the animal, which could be analyzed by multispecies ethnography, for example, are not applied (Ameli, 2022).
At the same time, it is apparent elsewhere that internal communication, especially with animal welfare officers, scientists, and animal keepers, works very well. Yet it remains unclear how a CoC can be successfully implemented without addressing questions of animal agency or Russell and Burch’s (1959) ultimate goal of ending animal testing. It becomes clear which systemic boundaries must be overcome: “We as humans take it upon ourselves to determine whether we have the authority to perform experiments on animals where the animals in question have nothing to gain” (Professor).
Overall, parts of a CoC were practiced. These included close collaboration between employees, husbandry conditions, and the care of animals as patients and work colleagues. On the other hand, the representations of a CoC show that the concept in the strict sense is not well known at management level. A CoC is inextricably linked with the 3Rs principle, but the characteristics of a CoC are primarily understood as characteristics of the 3Rs. Self-reflection is seen as a guarantor here. However, interviewees do not describe any efforts, such as action plans, to implement a concrete CoC, and questions of a change of perspective in favor of the animal and ceasing to test on animals remain unconsidered.
Monitoring Level
The monitoring level appeared to be in close contact with other levels, especially with other monitoring levels and scientific and management levels. A differentiated view also found no holistic understanding of the multi-perspectivity of the Culture of Care concept at this level. Nevertheless, self-discipline and reflectiveness were mentioned and were markers that characterize a CoC. The need to respect the animals was mentioned, as was effective communication across levels from animal caretaker to project manager. A significant communication problem was touched upon when one animal welfare officer said that management impeded the implementation of a CoC: “Culture of Care is not so professional here, from the top level very unprofessional.”This highlights leadership’s key role in implementing transformative structures (Brown et al., 2018; Kunda, 2006). The criticism of authority also tied in with this point. An authority representative stated that CoC in the university system is characterized by the availability of permanent positions to ensure its elements. He indicated that recurrent experiments must be carried out by experienced persons for quality control, for both CoC and good scientific practice.
Core categories of a culture of care at management level
Citation: Society & Animals 2024; 10.1163/15685306-bja10213
All monitoring-level representatives identified refinement as a relevant core parameter of the 3Rs principles. The authority representative also addressed this and stated that reflection must lead to a conclusion which is in the animals’ interests. This is relevant, for example, in the scientific confirmation that the “mouse model” is no longer suitable for the study of atherosclerosis.
In support of the establishment and implementation of the 3Rs principles as well as a CoC, two animal welfare officers explicitly named training courses on their implementation. They also said that an intensive examination of ethics, emotions, and the question of indispensability are necessary to initiate a CoC and, consequently, action resulting from it. An authority representative said they believed “we have a lot of work to do on how casually animals are used.” They clarified that this means questioning one’s own research and the categorization of animals:
I think it is very bad that we put animals into certain categories. We have farm animals, we have hobby animals, we have pets, we have domestic animals, we have pest animals, we have laboratory animals, we have fur animals. Each of these categories assigns certain rights to animals, a certain amount of pain, suffering, damage. Then within that category, we make the distinction between large animals with a lot of suffering and small animals with little suffering. (Authority representative)
Another essential point is the debate – which surfaces in Human-Animal Studies especially – on the agency of animals, which an animal welfare officer also addressed. This means that the animal should be given a higher status and that there should be reflection on how one’s own actions are perceived from different perspectives. This is considered necessary to improve methods and the ways that animals, but also other humans, are dealt with.
The welfare officer further stated that subjectivity must be considered, since animal experimentation is a construct that, from the human perspective, is interpreted as a model. It can be concluded from this that objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive (Mauss, 2013).
In terms of humans and other animals, it is essential that – building on a basis of trust across levels – a constructive solution is found. According to the animal welfare officer, this is especially important when mistakes happen: “Mistakes happen in life and you only learn from them and you can only really tackle and change things if you continue to reflect on yourself and the situation and actually try to improve something from that point.” Although the management level’s views were close to the goal of ending animal testing, it must be noted that there was little to no questioning of structures when it comes to its application. Rather, legal and organizational structures were complied with to advance publications, for example. Conversely, this means that publication pressure, according to the management, placed more emphasis on securing one’s own survival in science than on questioning the importance of a CoC or its structural implementation.
Animal welfare officers as well as authority representatives demonstrated understanding of what a CoC means. Indicators emerged relating to animal agency and the reflective capacity of employees. However, the administrative apparatus hinders the consistent implementation of a CoC with the goal of abandoning research on sentient beings. This results not least from the fact that it is difficult to provide comprehensive advice on the implementation of procedures based, for example, on complicated mathematical models (in silico procedures), complex cell-based approaches (development of organoids), or highly technical procedures (in the analysis of human patient material).
Science Level
At the science level, CoC was mainly understood in terms of animal welfare, although communication between levels was also considered relevant:
[Y]ou have to be on good terms with the higher authorities of the veterinary management, with the animal caretakers, with the veterinarians. But on the other hand, you also have to be good with the animal caretakers, because at the end of the day, if you mess with that, then maybe they won’t tell you about every “little ache.” (PhD student)
Ensuring the wellbeing of animals was unanimously understood at the scientific level as a building block of a CoC, but even this was handled very differently in the institutions:
I actually understand this to mean this awareness on the part of those conducting the experiment to pay attention to the welfare of the animal and just to make sure as best as possible that you cause as little stress as possible to the animal; while still having a good scientific output. (PostDoc)
Core categories of a culture of care at monitoring level
Citation: Society & Animals 2024; 10.1163/15685306-bja10213
The scientific level was inherently concerned with specific scientific questions and the animal model seemed to have been identified as a suitable “tool” to address hypotheses. What remains unclear is the scientific community’s willingness to abandon this model and consistently implement alternatives. This might be more likely if its members actively implemented a CoC, especially regarding creativity and reshaping values and beliefs. While several years of activity (e.g., working group leadership) in this field can provide experience and diverse impressions, permitting reflection and re-evaluation, young academics are without this history. There is a lack of appropriate benchmarks to assess whether the chosen animal model is actually the best model or whether the working group is relying on tradition. A constructive and appreciative exchange is only possible through barrier-free communication and openness to young scientists, together with training and communication about the features of a CoC.
A particular challenge existed, according to one doctoral student, in managing emotion during his experimental projects and the killing of animals: “I’ve also had everyone tell me that there is actually no one who is completely unaffected by this. You just learn to deal with it, to put it that way.”
Finally, one of the interviewees summarized CoC as follows:
It means to me: Each individual has to make a conscious decision to do this work, to do the research. … When animals are used, I think it is even more important to think carefully about what you are doing and how you can achieve certain results with a small number of animals. … And then, of course, you have to treat the animals, in all the things you do with them, as well as possible, and the boss has to make sure that all the employees act in a similar way. (Professor)
This shows, then, that the CoC is less focused on the abandonment of animal experimentation than on continuing with experiments but achieving better animal welfare along the way.
Core categories of a culture of care at scientific level
Citation: Society & Animals 2024; 10.1163/15685306-bja10213
Care Level
The care level was highly differentiated. However, most respondents were not aware of the CoC concept until the interview; for example, in response to the term, an animal caregiver said, “I had never heard it that way.” Nevertheless, in terms of theoretical findings, the data showed some characteristics of a CoC and their integration into the daily professionalization processes of the care level. The care level showed close parallels to the 3Rs principles in its understanding of a CoC.
Similarly to the other interviewed levels, collaboration was perceived as very significant by the animal caregivers, suggesting an appreciation of their own work:
So with us, it’s really good collaboration. We have an animal welfare committee meeting four times a year and discuss everything there. We animal keepers are there anyway, then all the working group leaders and then everything is discussed again in detail. (Animal keeper)
An essential task of the animal keepers can be categorized in the context of a Culture of Care:
We have a certain responsibility as animal caretakers and above all we really offer a certain protection for the animal during our work, educate ourselves further in order to then be able to deal with the animal better. … [Y]ou just keep up with the times and really try to do the best possible for the animal during your working hours. (Animal keeper)
Compared to the scientists, the keepers also showed a certain distance from the animals, an observation consistent with Russell and Burch’s (1959) writings:
You have to look at this relatively broadly neutrally. I love all my mice, so if a mouse squeaks, I see what’s going on. You must not have a close connection, because as soon as you have a close connection to the animal, it is of course much more difficult, even for us old-established animal keepers, to kill animals. (Animal keeper)
For this reason, those working at the level of care explained that team training is an essential resource for dealing with the animals. To understand the care level, not only general external training, but also internal communication processes with scientists or laboratory assistants are necessary. Linked to this, according to one animal keeper, is the questioning of existing routines and procedures (within the team) if they have been part of the organization’s culture for decades. To understand animal research as a coordinated system, it is relevant that all levels are in contact with each other in an appreciative manner and that regular exchange takes place:
All people – regardless of whether they are professor, doctor, a lab technician, or an animal keeper – are on an equal footing. There’s really no distinction based on position or hierarchy. We all treat each other very respectfully. (Animal keeper)
The attributions and social constructions assigned to the animals used resulted in different conclusions within the care level, leading to contradictory statements. For example, regarding animal agency, one animal keeper expressed the following:
Sympathy is also shown by mice. If someone is hectic, then the mice are hectic and you notice it even if an animal keeper simply changes. If someone is on vacation and someone else takes his place, then the mice are also a bit more hectic when they are first moved. (Animal keeper)
Yet another animal keeper said, “I must honestly say that I have not yet noticed this with mice.” Additionally, references were made to cultural differences that characterize animal handling and animal welfare: “I partly have the feeling that with some scientists or groups of scientists and also from the international area, animal welfare is not prioritized, as with us in the European area” (Animal keeper).
Overall, animal caregivers experienced the potential stresses of the lab animals in their daily work. Their bond was asymmetrical, as the animals depend on them, although care is not infrequently linked to bonding (Bayne, 2002). In this context and, furthermore, when denoting animals, it is essential that they are perceived in terms of their individuality. Here, training animals to avoid stress also plays a crucial role.
The level of care is frequently considered to be one of the most significant aspects in animal research, and Russell and Burch (1959) underline its importance. A basic attraction to animals leads to this career field. According to Wolfle (2002), people who feel deeply are among the best and most committed employees, and this frequently includes animal caregivers. Based on his own work with rhesus monkeys, Wolfle (2002) points out that he also felt the ambivalence dilemma that emerged in the interviews, but he could not fully implement total distance from the animals (Roe & Greenhough, 2021).
Working with laboratory animals can be accompanied by complex emotional conflicts described as Compassion Fatigue Syndrome (Van Hooser et al., 2021). This describes the internal ambivalences through occurring polylemma, which was also named by one animal caregiver. The distance or absence of emotions was described as necessary for performing certain activities, such as euthanizing animals. What remained unconsidered in the interviews is how this ultimately affects the animals. Consequently, whether greater sensitivity toward animal suffering would alter the processes is not discussed.
Rather, what is central is the need for ongoing care-level training to recognize, appropriately assess, and respond to stress. Every day involves the care of not one animal but – especially in mouse husbandry – thousands of animals at the same time. It is critical be able to actively assess animals’ wellbeing despite performing monotonous tasks. Only good communication in the sense of a CoC and targeted training can ensure this. This is a key point in the implementation of a CoC, especially given the appreciation of the care level and its activities on the part of the management and researchers. Human wellbeing here requires animal wellbeing. Nevertheless, even at this level, the goal of ceasing to use animals in research remains unaddressed, illustrating that here, too, a CoC is understood as an improvement of current conditions rather than a transformation.
Conclusion
Based on the empirical interviews undertaken as well as previous research results, the concept of a CoC describes a complex mosaic of interdependent factors. It became clear that two pillars were essential for most of the interviewees: animal wellbeing and effective communication between the different organizational levels of animal research. Meanwhile, the care level identified the lowest number of characteristics of a CoC. This resulted from the fact that the concept itself was hardly known there.
If these results are read in relation to the theoretical background, the CoC can be characterized in terms of umbrella categories of organizational level, personality, scientificity, and animal welfare. These contain subcategories as shown in the following table (Table 5). We used these to generate a paradigmatic model that schematically contextualizes the dissected data to describe a CoC as well as to map the complex interdependencies.
Analysis of the different organizational levels showed that moral and ethical dimensions considerations played an overriding role and were closely linked to emotions or employee health. Nevertheless, the results showed that ethical dimensions and the 3Rs principles were considered independently from each other and ending the use of animals in research was not much in focus. A CoC consequently includes an “ethics of caring” (Russow, 2002). This idea, originally associated with the work of psychologist Carol Gilligan, emphasizes the legitimacy of considering the particulars of each situation when making ethical decisions, especially the personal relationships between those whom a decision or action affects.
In the results, a CoC was mentioned at all organizational levels in terms of specific characteristics, and further training on the topic was increasingly being implemented. For example, all levels included practices such as good care for animals, constant monitoring of refinement measures, or communication within and between the levels. But at present, there was hardly any institutional anchoring beyond this, for example, through concrete guidelines or action plans for the implementation of a (institutional or systematic) CoC.
Core categories of a culture of care
Citation: Society & Animals 2024; 10.1163/15685306-bja10213
For the animals, this meant that conditions were described as significantly improved by refinement and most respondents showed a positive basic attitude. However, a weakness in the current concept of the CoC thus became visible: It does not encourage any fundamental questioning of the intentions behind laboratory animals use. The implementation of a CoC is juxtaposed with a guiding principle that describes the advancement of knowledge, the development of life-saving interventions, and the improvement of the quality of life for both humans and animals (Brown et al. 2018).
Kirk (2018) writes that “Within human experimental technique, cross-species epistemological cooperation was elided with that of ethical codependency: to safeguard their identity as human and scientist, the researcher had to care for the animal” (p. 643). However, any change in perspective on animals, such as using multispecies ethnography, remains absent. This means that a “simple commitment” in the form of guidelines is not sufficient to secure sustainable structural change. In the future, this means that the characteristics of a CoC need to be further analyzed and developed through construction and deconstruction.
The present partial results indicate (among other things) a certain degree of mindfulness and appreciation associated with a CoC. However, CoC implementation seems to be carried out from a very limited, anthropocentric perspective. The mosaic pieces of the CoC can only come together to form a picture if the actors involved break away from their organizational levels, interact, and break old rules. This presupposes a self-evident, non-hierarchical cooperation in which, for example, management does not show top-down leadership toward the care level as a recipient. Exchange and communication must be reciprocal. This would create conditions for encountering animals in a comparable way and recognizing their agency comprehensively and as a given.
A CoC with the goal of the complete abandonment of the use of sentient beings, as mentioned by Russell and Burch (1959), is not currently being implemented. In this regard, we want to cite Davies et al. (2016), who argue with Haraway (2007) that it is necessary to look back, to pause and to understand that encountering the gaze of the other is a condition of being oneself. This allows researchers, through a change of perspective, to finally answer the question: “Do I live a Culture of Care?”
It will be important to include reflection at the individual as well as organizational level. One way to implement this is by offering supervision or coaching within a company. It is a major shortcoming of current practice that individual emotion, such as in relation to the killing of animals, is barely considered, and instead distance is considered necessary to perform certain actions. Providing space for these emotions would be a first step in giving the CoC a new direction. This might be a promising way to integrate deeper and more differentiated reflection on one’s own ways of dealing with sentient beings. If a Culture of Care were to develop in this direction, science could begin to break free from the human-centered viewpoint which still permits, legally and socially, the use of sentient animals in research.
Acknowledgements
The research was funded by Stiftung SET, Stiftung zur Förderung der Erforschung von Ersatz- und Ergänzungsmethoden zur Einschränkung von Tierversuchen, P 072.
References
Ameli, K. (2022). Multispecies ethnography: Methodology of a holistic research approach of humans, animals, nature, and culture. Lexington Books.
Behrisch, L. (2015). Die Berechnung der Glückseligkeit. Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Brüsemeister, T. (2008). Qualitative Forschung: Ein Überblick VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Brown, M. (2014). Creating a Culture of Care. NC3Rs. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news/creating-culture-care.
Brown, M., Symonowicz, C., Medina, L., Bratcher, N., Buckmaster, C., Klein, H. & Anderson, L. (2018). Culture of Care: Organizational responsibilities. In R.H. Weichbrod, G.A.H. Thompson, & J.N. Norton (Eds.), Management of animal care and use programs in research, education, and testing (pp. 11–26). CRC Press.
Culture of Care Network. (2018). Communication and the Culture of Care. Norecopa. https://norecopa.no/media/8159/communication-and-the-culture-of-care-from-the-culture-of-care-network.pdf.
Davies, G., Greenhough, B., Hobson-West, P., Kirk, R., Applebee, K., & Bellingan, L. (2016). Developing a collaborative agenda for humanities and social scientific research on laboratory animal science and welfare. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0158791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158791.
Gorman, R., & Davies, G. (2020). When “cultures of care” meet: Entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK. Social & Cultural Geography, 24(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2020.1814850.
Ferrara, F. (2020). Culture of Care in der tierexperimentellen Forschung: Eine Frage der Vernetzung von Tierwohl und Menschlichem Wohlbefinden. Versuchstierkunde kompakt, 05/2020, 8–15.
Haraway, D.J. (2007). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1998). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Huber.
Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (1999). Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. VS Verlag.
Kirk R.G.W. (2018). Recovering The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique: The 3Rs and the human essence of animal research. Science, Technology & Human Values, 43(4), 622–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917726579. Epub 2017 Aug 28. PMID: 30008492; PMCID: PMC6027778.
Klein, H.J., & Bayne, K.A. (2007). Establishing a culture of care, conscience, and responsibility. Addressing the improvement of scientific discovery and animal welfare through science-based performance standards. ILAR Journal, 48(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1093/ilar.48.1.3.
Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering culture. Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Temple University Press.
Mauss, M. (2013). Handbuch der Etnographie. Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Rennie, A., & Buchanan-Smith, H. (2006). Refinement of the use of non-human primates in scientific research. Part I: The influence of humans. Animal Welfare, 15, 203–213.
Robinson, S., Sparrow, S., Williams, B., Decelle, T., Bertelsen, T., Reid, K., & Chlebus, M. (2019). The European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare Group. Assessing and benchmarking “Culture of Care” in the context of using animals for scientific purpose. Laboratory Animals, 54(5), 23677219887998. doi: 10.1177/0023677219887998.
Roe, E., & Greenhough, B. (2023). A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research. Social & Cultural Geography, 24(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977.
Rosenthal, G. (2011). Interpretative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung. Juventa.
Russell, W.M.S., & Burch, R.L. (1959). Humane experimental technique. Methuen & Co Ltd.
Russow, L.-M. (2002). Ethical implications of the human-animal bond in the laboratory. ILAR Journal, 43(1), 33–37.
Strauss, A. (1991). Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung: Datenanalyse und theoriebildung inder empirischen und soziologischen Forschung. Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory. Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Beltz.
Tannenbaum, J., & Bennett, B.T. (2015). Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: The need for clarity in definition and purpose. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 54(2), 120–132. PMID: 25836957; PMCID: PMC4382615.
Thieme Gruppe. (2018). I care ernkarten, pflege. Georg Thieme Verlag KG. https://www.thieme.de/statics/dokumente/thieme/final/de/dokumente/tw_pflege/I_care_LK_37.pdf
Van Hooser, J.P., Pekow, C., Nguyen, H.M., D’Urso, D.M., Kerner, S.E., & Thompson-Iritani, S. (2021). Caring for the animal caregiver: Occupational health, human-animal bond and compassion fatigue. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 731003. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.731003. PMID: 34820435; PMCID: PMC8606809.
Waitt, C., Buchanan-Smith, H., & Morris, K. (2002). The effects of caretaker-primate relationships on primates in the laboratory. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5(4), 309–319. doi:10.1207/s15327604jaws0504_05.
Williams, A. (2021). Caring for those who care: Towards a more expansive understanding of ‘cultures of care’ in laboratory animal facilities, Social & Cultural Geography, 24(1), 31–48. doi: 10.1080/14649365.2021.1939123.
Wolfle, T.L. (2002). Implications of human-animal interactions and bonds in the laboratory. ILAR Journal, 43(1), 1–3. doi: 10.1093/ilar.43.1.1. PMID: 11913343.
