Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-5sfl8 Total loading time: 0.58 Render date: 2022-12-06T19:48:12.410Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Human-Animal Governance and University Practice in Canada: A Problematizing Redescription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Laura Janara*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
University of British Columbia, Department of Political Science, 1866 Main Mall, Vancouver BC V6 K 2C6Canada.

Abstract

Each year through the practices of Canada's universities, vast numbers of nonhuman animals are caught, bought or bred, narrowly confined, manipulated and killed. These university−animal relations are governed by a state-based regime, the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). Through the lens of critical public philosophy, I clarify the power that has constituted this governance regime and now sustains it, examining the regime's justifying claims, its practices that authorize universities and scholars as legally compliant and the related effects of its power. The resulting critical redescription reveals fundamental problems with the political legitimacy of CCAC governance and thus with the university−animal relations that it sanctions.

Résumé

Chaque année, les universités canadiennes capturent, achètent ou élèvent, confinent, manipulent et tuent quantité d'animaux non-humains. Ces relations université-animal sont régies par un programme étatique, le Conseil canadien de protection des animaux (CCPA). À travers le prisme de la philosophie publique critique, je ferai la lumière sur le pouvoir qui a constitué ce régime de gouvernance et le soutient aujourd'hui, les justificatifs de ce régime et son existence qui garantit la légalité des pratiques des universités et des universitaires en vertu du pouvoir qu'il leur confère. La redescription critique qui en résulte révèle certains problèmes fondamentaux quant à la légitimité politique de la gouvernance du CCAC et, ainsi, de la relation université-animal qu'elle sanctionne.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act. Bill C-10. 2002. http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=C10&Parl=37&Ses=2 (May 12, 2014).Google Scholar
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code in Respect of Cruelty to Animals. Bill C-50. 2005. http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=C50&Parl=38&Ses=1 (May 12, 2014).Google Scholar
Avey, Marc T. 2012. “Systematic Reviews.” Presentation and slides. University of British Columbia, November 27.Google Scholar
Balcolme, Jonathan. 2001. “Dissection: The Scientific Case for Alternatives.Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4 (2): 117–26.Google Scholar
Blosh, Marie. 2012. “The History of Animal Welfare Law and the Future of Animal Rights.” LL.M. thesis. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
Bracken, M.B. 2008. “Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure.” JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation. www.jameslindlibrary.org (May 8, 2014).Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC). 1993. “Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals,” vol. I. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Experimental_Animals_Vol1.pdf (May 8 2014).Google Scholar
CCAC. 1997. “CCAC guidelines on: animal use protocol review.” http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Protocol_Review.pdf (May 8, 2014).Google Scholar
CCAC. 2010. “Confidentiality of Assessment Information.” http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Policies/Confidentiality_of_assessment_information.pdf (May 8, 2014).Google Scholar
CCAC. 2013. “CCAC policy statement on: scientific merit and ethical review of animal-based research.” http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Policies/Scientific_merit_and_ethical_review_of_animal-based_research.pdf (May 8, 2014).Google Scholar
CCAC. n. d., a. www.ccac.ca/en_/about (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
CCAC. n.d., b. www.ccac.ca/en_/about/f.a.q. (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
CCAC. n.d., g. www.ccac.ca/en_/assessment/acc (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
CCAC. n.d., l. www.ccac.ca/en_/threer (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. 2006. Manual for Community Representatives. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Assessment/Community_representatives_manual.pdf (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (Tri-Councils). 2010. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf (May 12, 2014).Google Scholar
Chan, An-Wen, Krleza-Jeric, Karmela, Schmid, Isabelle and Altman, Douglas G.. 2004. “Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 171 (7): 735–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane Collaboration Open Learning Material for Reviewers. 2002. http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/ (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2008. http://www.cochrane.org/handbook (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
Criminal Code. R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, Sec. 445.1 (1).Google Scholar
Dagg, Anne Innis. 1999. “Responsible animal-based research: Three flags to consider.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2: 337–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagg, Anne Innis. 2000. “Animal Experimentation in Cancer Research: A Citation Analysis.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3 (3): 239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagg, Anne Innis and Seidle, Troy. 2004. “Levels of Citation of Nonhuman Animal Studies Conducted at a Canadian Research Hospital.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7 (3): 205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, Mary G. and Farr, James. 1998. “‘Politics Would Undoubtedly Unwoman Her’: Gender, Suffrage, and American Political Science,” in Gender and American Social Science: The Formative Years, ed. Silverberg, Helene. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dolgert, Stefan. 2012. “Sacrificing Justice: Suffering Animals, the Oresteia, and the Masks of Consent.” Political Theory 40 (3): 263–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Sue and Kymlicka, Will. 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John. 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, Ferric, Steen, R. Grant, Casadevall, Arturo. 2012. “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications,” PNAS Early Edition. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109 (May 9, 2014).Google Scholar
Griffin, Gilly. 2009. “Establishing a Three Rs Programme at the Canadian Council on Animal Care.” ATLA 37 (Supplement 2): 63–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Hughes, Elaine L. 2003. “Scientific Experiments on Animals and Constitutional Principle.” Constitutional FORUM 12 (3): 6976.Google Scholar
Hughes, Jula. 2013. “Codification—Recodification: The Stephen Code and the Fate of Criminal Law Reform in Canada.” April 18. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2253561 (May 10, 2014).Google Scholar
Kilkenny, Carol, Parsons, Nick, Kadyszewski, Ed, Festing, Michael F.W., Cuthill, Innes C., Fry, Derek, Hutton, Jane and Altman, Douglas G.. 2009. “Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals.” PLoS ONE 4 (11): e7824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladner, Kiera L. 2005. “Up the Creek: Fishing for a New Constitutional Order.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (4): 923–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levasseur, Karine. 2009. “Universities and the Regulation of Research Ethics.” In Research and Innovation Policy: Changing Federal Government-University Relations, ed. Doern, G. Bruce and Stoney, Christopher. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, Dan. 2013. The Politics of Animal Experimentation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moher, David, Liberati, Alessandro, Tetzlaff, Jennifer and Altman, Douglas G.. 2009. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” PLoS Medicine 6 (7): e1000097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
“Metaphysicians.” 2014. The Economist. March 14: 57.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Charlotte. 2000. Blood Relations: Animals, Humans, and Politics. Toronto: Between the Lines.Google Scholar
Mulrow, C.D. 1994. “Rationale for systematic reviews,” British Medical Journal 309 (6954): 597–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ormandy, Elisabeth and Makowska, Joanna. 2011. “Opening Up: Is Sunlight the Best Disinfectant?Public Policy and Governance Review 2 (2): 6373.Google Scholar
Plumptre, Tim and Associates, Inc. 2013. “The Governance of the Canadian Council on Animal Care: Review and Recommendations for Reform,” July 15. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Pound, Pandora, Ebrahim, Shah, Sandercock, Peter, Bracken, Michael B. and Roberts, Ian. 2004. “Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?British Medical Journal 328: 514–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R. v. Ménard, [1978] 43 C.C.C. (2d) 458 (Que. C.A.).Google Scholar
Schuppli, Catherine A. and Fraser, David. 2005. “The Interpretation and Application of the Three Rs by Animal Ethics Committee Members.” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 33: 487500.Google ScholarPubMed
Schuppli, Catherine and Fraser, David. 2007. “Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Research Ethics Committees.” Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 294301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuppli, Catherine and McDonald, Michael. 2005. “Contrasting Modes of Governance for the Protection of Humans and Animals in Canada: Lessons for Reform.” Health Law Review 13 (2, 3): 97106.Google ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, Ian. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Kimberly K. 2012. Governing Animals: Animal Welfare and the Liberal State. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Chloë. 2013. “Foucault and Critical Animal Studies: Genealogies of Agricultural Power.” Philosophy Compass 8 (6): 539–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tricco, Andrea C., Tetzlaff, Jennifer and Moher, David. 2011. “The art and science of knowledge synthesis,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64 (1): 1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tully, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key. vols I and II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Carey. 2013. Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Yushchenko, Anya, Berreville, Olivier, Wright, Nick, White, Liz and Sullivan, Erika. 2011. “Elimination of live terminal surgeries in Canadian veterinary practices.” Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, Montreal.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Human-Animal Governance and University Practice in Canada: A Problematizing Redescription
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Human-Animal Governance and University Practice in Canada: A Problematizing Redescription
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Human-Animal Governance and University Practice in Canada: A Problematizing Redescription
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *