This paper constitutes a speculative bioethical intervention into the challenge of developing cultures of care and assembling enriched environments for genetically altered mice in laboratory environments. The principles of the 3Rs—to reduce, replace, and refine the use of laboratory animals—established in the late 1950s, are still the institutional and international starting point for humane animal experimentation. However, the proliferating diversity and numbers of genetically altered animals used in biomedical research are a challenge to the application of these universal principles. The different capacities of the many mice brought into being through scientific practices constitute biomedical experimentation as a multiple, challenging the identification of universal refinements. In this paper I argue that these capacities constitute a multitude: their indefinite number and irreducible multiplicity are both a threat to these principles and an opening to the possibility of new bioethical formulations. Drawing on ethnographic research with scientists and policy makers involved in animal welfare and biomedical research, this paper explores emerging strategies for reassembling animal welfare in the face of the multitude and the multiple. By using insights from Žižek, Haraway, and Hinchliffe, it aims to demonstrate the value of a speculative ethics, which, instead of seeking new universal principles to protect animals from harm, starts from the inevitable and particular entanglements of animal and human suffering, as a way of connecting affective capacities across space and time. This is illustrated through the experimental conjunctures of barbering mice. In conclusion, I suggest that such speculative bioethical formulations may contribute to renarrating modes of ethical engagement when sociotechnical assemblages are complex, objects and ontological forms are multiple and mutable, data are simultaneously abundant and inadequate, and formal ethical review procedures are incapable of either containing controversy or enabling critique.
AbbottA, 2004, “Geneticists prepare for deluge of mutant mice”Nature News432541
2.
AndersonB, 2007, “Hope for nanotechnology: Anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect”Area39156–165
3.
BalmerB, 1996, “Managing mapping in the Human Genome Project”Social Studies of Science26531–573
4.
BeckJLloydSHafezparastMLennon-PierceMEppigJFestingMFisherE, 2000, “Genealogies of mouse inbred strains”Nature Genetics2423–25
5.
BeckersJWurstWde AngelisHrabé M, 2009, “Towards better mouse models: Enhanced genotypes, systemic phenotyping and envirotype modelling”Nature Reviews Genetics10371–380
6.
BirkeLArlukeAMichaelM, 2007The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People (Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, IN)
7.
BowkerG C, 2006Memory Practices in the Sciences (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
8.
CabibSPuglisi-AllegraSVenturaR, 2002, “The contribution of comparative studies in inbred strains of mice to the understanding of the hyperactive phenotype”Behavioural Brain Research133351–361
9.
CrabbeJ CWahlstenDDudekB C, 1999, “Genetics of mouse behaviour: Interactions with laboratory environment”Science2841670–1672
10.
DaviesG, 2010, “Captivating behaviour: Mouse models, experimental genetics and reductionist returns in the neurosciences”, in Nature After the Genome Eds ParrySDupréJ (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford) pp 53–72
11.
DaviesG, 2011, “Writing biology with mutant mice: The monstrous potential of post genomic life”, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.03.004
12.
DespretV, 2004, “The body we care for: Figures of anthropo-zoo-genesis”Body and Society10111–133
13.
De VriesR, 2006, “Genetic engineering and the integrity of animals”Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics19469–493
14.
DouglasM, 1986How Institutions Think (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY)
15.
EichbergS, 2009, “Constituting the human via the animal in eighteenth-century experimental neurophysiology: Albrecht von Haller's sensibility trials”Medizinhistorisches Journal44274–295
16.
FortunKFortunM, 2005, “Scientific imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary US toxicology”American Anthropologist10743–54
17.
FoucaultM, 1970The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (Routledge, London)
18.
FoucaultM, 1997Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (The Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume I) Ed. RabinowP (New Press, New York)
19.
GarnerJMasonG, 2002, “Evidence for a relationship between cage stereotypies and behavioural disinhibition in laboratory rodents”Behavioural Brain Research13683–92
20.
GarnerJWeiskerSDufourBMenchJ, 2004, “Barbering (fur and whisker trimming) by laboratory mice as a model of human trichotillomania and obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders”Comparative Medicine54216–222
21.
GondoY, 2008, “Trends in large-scale mouse mutagenesis: From genetics to functional genomics”Nature Reviews Genetics9803–810
22.
GreenhoughBRoeE, 2010, “From ethical principles to response-able practice”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space2843–45
23.
GreenhoughBRoeE, 2011, “Ethics, space, and somatic sensibilities: Comparing relationships between scientific researchers and their human and animal experimental subjects”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space2947–66
24.
GrimmG, 2006, “A mouse for every gene”Science3121862–1866
KalueffA VTuohimaaP, 2004, “Contrasting grooming phenotypes in C57Bl/6 and 129S1/SvImJ mice”Brain Research102875–82
32.
KirkR, 2008, “‘Wanted—standard guinea pigs’: Standardisation and the experimental animal market in Britain c. 1919–1947”Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences39280–291
33.
KirkR, 2009, “Between the clinic and the laboratory: Ethology and pharmacology in the work of Michael Robin Alexander Chance, c. 1946–1964”Medical History53513–536
34.
LatourB, 2004, “Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern”Critical Inquiry30225–248
35.
LawJ, 2004After Method: Mess is Social Science Research (Routledge, London)
36.
LezaunJ, 2010, “The risk regulation of ‘frontier research’: The case of gene therapy” in Anticipating Risks in the 21st Century Ed. HutterB, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 208–230
37.
MasonGRushenJ, 2006Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare (CABI, Wallingford, Oxon)
38.
MolA M, 2002The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
39.
NevisonCHurstJBarnardC, 1999, “Why do male ICR(CD-1) mice perform bar-related stereotypic behaviour?”Behavioural Processes4795–111
40.
NicolCBrocklebankSMendlMSherwinC, 2008, “A targeted approach to developing environmental enrichment for two strains of laboratory mice”Applied Animal Behaviour Science110341–353
41.
OlssonINevisonCPatterson-KaneESherwinCVan de WeerdeHWürbelH, 2003, “Understanding behaviour: The relevance of ethological approaches in laboratory animal science”Applied Animal Behaviour Science81245–264
42.
RaderK, 2004Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900–1955 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
43.
RheinbergerH J, 1997Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
44.
RichterSGarnerJWürbelH, 2009, “Environmental standardization: Cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments?”Nature Methods 6 257–261
45.
RichterSGarnerJAuerCKunertJWurbelH, 2010, “Systematic variation improves reproducibility of animal experiments”Nature Methods7167–168
46.
RobertJBaylisF, 2003, “Crossing species boundaries”The American Journal of Bioethics31–13
47.
RobinsR, 2008, “Inventing Oncomice: Making natural animal, research tool and invention cohere”Genomics, Society and Policy421–35
48.
RollinB, 2003, “Ethics and species integrity”The American Journal of Bioethics315–17
49.
RosenthalNBrownS, 2007, “The mouse ascending: Perspectives for human-disease models”Nature Cell Biology9993–999
50.
RussellWBurchR, 1959The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (Methuen, London)
51.
SarnaJDyckRWhishawI, 2000, “The Dalila effect: C57BL6 mice barber whiskers by plucking”Behavioral Brain Research10839–45
52.
SerresM, 1995Genesis (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI)
53.
SiegelA, 2003, “The moral insignificance of crossing species boundaries”The American Journal of Bioethics333–34
54.
SteinDGarnerJKeuthenNFranklinMWalkupJWoodsD, Trichotillomania Learning Center Scientific Advisory Board, 2007, “Trichotillomania, stereotypic movement disorder, and related disorders”Current Psychiatry Reports9301–302
55.
The Comprehensive Knockout Mouse Project Consortium, 2004, “The Knockout Mouse Project”Nature Genetics36921–924
56.
ThriftN, 2011, “Lifeworld Inc—and what to do about it”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space295–26
WeisbergZ, 2009, “The broken promises of monsters: Haraway, animals and the humanist legacy”Journal for Critical Animal Studies721–61
59.
WellsDPlayleLEnserWFlecknellPGardinerMHollandJHowardBHubrechtRHumphreysKJacksonILaneNMaconochieMMasonGMortonDRaymondRRobinsonVSmithJWattN, 2006, “Assessing the welfare of genetically-altered mice”Laboratory Animals40111–114
60.
WhatmoreS, 1997, “Dissecting the autonomous self: Hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1537–53
61.
WürbelH, 2000, “Behaviour and the standardization fallacy”Nature Genetics26263
62.
ŽižekS, 2010Living in the End Times (Verso Books, London)
