Who -- or What -- is the Laboratory Rat (and Mouse)?
Lynda Birke

This paper explores the many meanings attached to the designation, “the rodent in the laboratory” (rat or mouse). Generations of selective breeding have created these rodents. They now differ markedly from their wild progenitors, nonhuman animals associated with carrying all kinds of diseases. Through selective breeding, they have moved from the rats of the sewers to become standardized laboratory tools and (metaphorically) saviors of humans in the fight against disease. This paper sketches two intertwined strands of metaphors associated with laboratory rodents. The first focuses on the idea of medical/scientific progress; in this context, the paper looks at laboratory rodents often depicted (in advertising for laboratory products) as epitomizing medical triumph or serving as helpers or saviors. The second strand concerns the ambiguous status of the laboratory rodent who is both an animal (bites) and not an animal (data). The paper argues that, partly because of these ambiguous and multiple meanings, the rodent in the laboratory is doubly “othered” -- first in the way that animals so often are made other to ourselves and then other in the relationship of the animal in the laboratory to other animals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegal Hunting and Angling: The Neutralization of Wildlife Law Violations

Stephen L. Eliason

This study provides a descriptive account of rationalizations for poaching used by wildlife law violators. There has been little research on motivations for poaching. This study uses qualitative data obtained from surveys and in-depth interviews with wildlife law violators and conservation officers in Kentucky to examine rationalizations used by wildlife law violators to excuse and justify participation in this type of illegal activity. Comments from conservation officers and violators revealed widespread use of rationalizations, with denial of responsibility being most common. The study also used claims of entitlement, defense of necessity, and denial of necessity of the law. Findings contribute to our knowledge of why people illegally take wildlife resources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tracing the Profile of Animal Rights Supporters: A Preliminary Investigation

Colin Jerolmack

A question about the “moral rights” of nonhuman animals in the 1993 and 1994 General Social Survey (GSS)
effected an understanding of some of the demographics of those supporting animal rights. This study checked
results against related questions concerning attitudes toward animal testing and meat consumption. The stereotypical
profile of an animal rights supporter is female, well educated, upper-middle class, middle-aged, and white. The data in
this study do not support the stereotype. Instead, the young, non-black minorities, and the less educated were
more likely to support animal rights; income was not a significant predictor. Other predictors examined included religious
denomination, frequency of church attendance, and attitudes toward environmental protection. This study’s findings
suggest the need to rethink “post-materialist” and “post-citizenship” theories about who supports animal rights.
This paper also points the way toward future studies to examine the causal linkages between the predictors and
animal rights attitudes.
 

For FULL TEXT of all issues, including the most current, click FULL TEXT

To order Society & Animals Journal, go to our secure online ordering page

You can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA) website,
for topics and keywords of your interest: