Animals and Technoscience

TL;DR: The current issue of the journal Nanoethics as mentioned in this paper has a special section on technoscientific developments and animals, an extremely sensitive and highly politicized issue, with a focus on the use and treatment of animals in various sectors.

Abstract: The current issue of our journal features a special section on technoscientific developments and animals, an extremely sensitive and highly politicized issue. There is widespread unease and even outrage, at least in many Western societies, over the use and treatment of animals in various sectors, particularly in food production, in technoscience, and in entertainment. The spectrum of opponents to certain uses and treatments of animals extends from those who wish to see better protection of animals to proponents of far-reaching animal rights. On a political level, recent decades have for example seen animal protection included in theGerman constitution [1] and the use of great apes in animal testing banned in several countries. Such activities are often based on animals being perceived as fellow beings and categorically different from objects. If we look at German history in particular, however, we are reminded that such appreciation of animals often goes hand in handwith a depreciation of some of our fellow human beings, or at least—and not only in Germany—with animals being seen as innocent creatures requiring protection against the maliciousness of humankind. The relationships between technoscience and animal rights proponents are fraught with problems. Some radical animal rights activists engage in illegal Bdirect action^ to combat the use of animals in technoscience; small parts of the animal rights movement even resort to means dangerous to human life, prompting charges of terrorism, followed by counter-accusations of disproportionate sentencing for property damage. On the other hand, and this is something I have witnessed on a number of occasions duringmyworking life, researchers often tend to harden their hearts against the widespread concerns prevalent in many Western societies, perhaps psychologically rationalizing their own discomfort with some of the practices in the labs. Pointing out that there are relatively strict regulations in place concerning ethical aspects of the use of animals in technoscience—as compared to their treatment in other sectors (such as food production)—some scientists seem to shy away from engaging in discourse on our relationships with our closest natural relatives. Against this backdrop, the journal NanoEthics—for quite some time now a forum for animal ethics, and more broadly for animal studies [2–8]—has opened its pages to contributions from members of the critical animal studies (CAS) community. CAS features all the usual characteristics of an academic field that is closely related to activism, including strengths as well as weaknesses. I believe it is important that both natural scientists and scholars studying new and emerging science and technology should engage with the views of CAS scholars. Some or even all of the contributions to this special section on technoscientific developments and animals may be deemed provocative by certain readers of NanoEthics. I would specifically like to invite these readers in particular to respond to the views expressed in this special section, or to present their own views on the topic. Why is it important to engage with this topic? The use of animals in technoscience has of course many Nanoethics (2015) 9:1–4 DOI 10.1007/s11569-015-0225-2