A sociological perspective on the challenges of displacing animal research within academia: the contribution of Bourdieu

• This paper explores the persistence of animal research within academia • It applies Bourdieu’s concepts, including field, habitus and capital, to this context • It explores Bourdieu’s notion of scientific legitimacy regarding transitioning to NAMs • It examines the importance of considering power in discussions about the transition • It suggests Bourdieu’s conceptual framework will bring clarity to these discussions The use of non-animal, new approach methodologies (NAMs) is increasing but there has been no associated decrease in animal use. Reasons may include the focus on phasing-in NAMs over phasing-out animal use and the focus on transition within the regulatory sphere, although most animals are used in basic research. The transition to NAMs is often viewed as a technical matter, without acknowledging that scientific knowledge and practices are socially produced and that scientists may be motivated – like all social beings – by interests and power relationships. This paper employs the insights of French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, to explore the persistence of animal research within academia. Several of Bourdieu’s concepts are applied, including field and habitus, but perhaps it is his concept of capital that is most valuable in this context, providing a valuable shorthand for discussing the system of rewards and penalties within academia, clarifying how animal research converts into symbolic as well as social and economic capital and elucidating what scientists risk if they attempt to transition from animal research to NAMs. Bourdieu reminds us to attend to power relationships, particularly the relationship between the animal research field and the field of power. Importantly, he argued that scientific change does not occur simply as a result of paradigm shifts, but because of struggles between scientists for capital and for the power to define their science as ‘legitimate’. Bourdieu’s concepts bring clarity and sensitivity to discussions about the transition as these gather momentum

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
NAM journal.
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.namjnl.2025.100057
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A sociological perspective on the challenges of displacing animal research within academia: the contribution of Bourdieu

Pandora Pound
NAM journal.
Animal testing and alternatives
article

A sociological perspective on the challenges of displacing animal research within academia: the contribution of Bourdieu

Pandora Pound
article en

Abstract

• This paper explores the persistence of animal research within academia • It applies Bourdieu’s concepts, including field, habitus and capital, to this context • It explores Bourdieu’s notion of scientific legitimacy regarding transitioning to NAMs • It examines the importance of considering power in discussions about the transition • It suggests Bourdieu’s conceptual framework will bring clarity to these discussions The use of non-animal, new approach methodologies (NAMs) is increasing but there has been no associated decrease in animal use. Reasons may include the focus on phasing-in NAMs over phasing-out animal use and the focus on transition within the regulatory sphere, although most animals are used in basic research. The transition to NAMs is often viewed as a technical matter, without acknowledging that scientific knowledge and practices are socially produced and that scientists may be motivated – like all social beings – by interests and power relationships. This paper employs the insights of French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, to explore the persistence of animal research within academia. Several of Bourdieu’s concepts are applied, including field and habitus, but perhaps it is his concept of capital that is most valuable in this context, providing a valuable shorthand for discussing the system of rewards and penalties within academia, clarifying how animal research converts into symbolic as well as social and economic capital and elucidating what scientists risk if they attempt to transition from animal research to NAMs. Bourdieu reminds us to attend to power relationships, particularly the relationship between the animal research field and the field of power. Importantly, he argued that scientific change does not occur simply as a result of paradigm shifts, but because of struggles between scientists for capital and for the power to define their science as ‘legitimate’. Bourdieu’s concepts bring clarity and sensitivity to discussions about the transition as these gather momentum

NAM journal.Vol. 1
Safer Medicines Trust (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Animal testing and alternatives
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.