References

• Animals in Science. (2014, July 29). Lessons to be learnt, for duty holders and the regulator, from reviews and investigations into non-compliance.
   Google Scholar
• Arluke, A. (1991). Going into the close with science: Information control among animal experimenters. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20(3), 306–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124191020003004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, S., Lawson, V., & Wiles, J. (2011). Care of the body: Spaces of practice. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(6), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.601238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, RS. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burt, RS. (2005). Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borgatti, SP. (2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organisational Theory.12:21 h ttps://d o i.1 0.1 007/s10588-006-7084-x
   Google Scholar
• Birke, L., Arluke, A., & Michael, M. (2007). The sacrifice: How scientific experiments transform animals and people. Purdue University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowlby, S., & McKie, L. (2019). Care and caring: An ecological framework. AREA, 51(3), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, S. (2013, July 29). Brown report: Independent investigation into animal research at imperial college London.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Conradson, D. (2003). Spaces of care in the city: The place of a community drop-in centre. Social & Cultural Geography, 4(4), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464936032000137939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dam, M. S., Sangild, P. T., & Svendsen, M. N. (2020). Plastic pigs and public secrets in translational neonatology in Denmark. Palgrave Communications, 6(84). h t tps://d o i.o rg/1 0.1057/s41599-41020-40463y\w w w.nature.com/palgrave
   Google Scholar
• Dam, M. S., & Svendsen, M. N. (2018). Treating pigs: Balancing standardisation and individual treatments in translational neonatology research. BioSocieties, 13(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-017-0071-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, G., Greenhough, B., Hobson-West, P., & Kirk, R. G. W. (2018). Science, culture, and care in laboratory animal research: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the history and future of the 3Rs. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(4), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918757034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, G. F. (2010). Captivating behaviour: Mouse models, experimental genetics and reductionist returns in the neurosciences. The Sociological Review, 58(1_suppl), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01911.x
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G. F. (2012a). Caring for the multiple and the multitude: Assembling animal welfare and enabling ethical critique. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(4), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1068/d3211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, G. F. (2012b). What is a humanized mouse? Remaking the species and spaces of translational medicine. Body & Society, 18(3–4), 126–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X12446378
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druglitrø, T. (2018). “Skilled care” and the making of good science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 43(4), 649–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916688093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friese, C. (2013). Realizing the potential of translational medicine: The uncanny emergence of care as science. Current Anthropology, 54(7), S129–S138. https://doi.org/10.1086/670805
   Google Scholar
• Friese, C. (2019). Intimate entanglements in the animal house: Caring for and about mice. The Sociological Review, 67(2), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026119829753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friese, C., & Latimer, J. (2019). Entanglements in health and well-being: Working with model organisms in biomedicine and bioscience. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 33(1), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friese, C., Nuyts, N., & Pardo-Guerra, J. P. (2019). Cultures of care? Animals and science in Britain. British Journal of Sociology, 70(5), 2042–2069. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorman, R., & Davies, G. (2020). When ‘cultures of care’ meet: Entanglements and accountabilities at the intersection of animal research and patient involvement in the UK. Social & Cultural Geography, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2020.1814850
   Google Scholar
• Greenhough, B., & Roe, E. (2011). Ethics, space, and somatic sensibilities: Comparing relationships between scientific researchers and their human and animal experimental subjects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1068/d17109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhough, B., & Roe, E. (2018). Exploring the role of animal technologists in implementing the 3Rs: An ethnographic investigation of the UK university sector. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(4), 694–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917718066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson-West, P. (2012). Ethical boundary-work in the animal research laboratory. Sociology, 46(4), 649–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511435058
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holmberg, T., & Ideland, M. (2009). Transgenic silences: The rhetoric of comparisons and transgenic mice as ‘ordinary treasures’. BioSocieties, 4(165–181), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990044
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, T., & Friese, C. (2020). Making the anaesthetised animal into a boundary object: An analysis of the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 42(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00344-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Home Office, U. (2014, July 29). Report of ASRU Investigation into compliance.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. R. (2015). Of lobsters, laboratories, and war: Animal studies and the temporality of more-than-human encounters. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(2), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1068/d23512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirk, R. G. W. (2008). ‘Wanted - standard guinea pigs’: Standardisation and the experimental anima market in Britain ca. 1919-1947. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, 39(3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.06.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirk, R. G. W. (2010). A brave new animal for a brave new world: The British laboratory animals Bureau and the constitution of international standards of laboratory animal production and use, ca. 1947-1968. Isis, 101(1), 62–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/652689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirk, R. G. W. (2012). Standardization through mechanization: Germ free life and the engineering of the ideal laboratory animal. Technology and Culture, 53(1), 61–93. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2012.0025
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirk, R. G. W. (2014). The invention of the ‘stressed animal’ and the development of a science of animal welfare, 1947-86. In Stress and Adaptation in the Twentieth Century (pp. 241–263). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirk, R. G. W. (2016). Care in the cage: Materializing moral economies of animal care in the biomedical sciences, ca. 1945-. In K. Bjorkdahl & T. Druglitro (Eds.), Animal housing and human-animal relations: Politics, practices and infrastructures (pp. 167–184). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Long, J. C., Cunningham, F. C., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). “Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review.” BMC health services research, 13, 158. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472–6963–13–158
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. (1989). Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: Laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences. Social Studies of Science, 18(2), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631288018002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael, M., & Birke, L. (1994). Accounting for animal experiments: Identity and disreputable ‘others’. Science, Technology and Human Values, 19(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399401900204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milligan, C., & Wiles, J. (2010). Landscapes of care. Progress in Human Geography, 34(736–754).
   Google Scholar
• Nc3rs. (2019). Creating a culture of care.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, N. C. (2018). Model behavior: Animal experiments, complexity, and the genetics of psychiatric disorders. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norecopa. (2019). The international culture of care network.
   Google Scholar
• Raffles, H. (2002). Intimate knowledge. International Social Science Journal, 54(173), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00385
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, L. A. (2019). Animal ethos: The morality of human-animal encounters in experimental lab science. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen, M. N., & Koch, L. (2013). Potentializing the research piglet in experimental neonatal research. Current Anthropology, 54(S7)(S7), S118–S128. https://doi.org/10.1086/671060
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen, M. N., Navne, L. E., Gjodsbol, I. M., & Dam, M. S. (2018). A life worth living: Temporality, care, and personhood in the Danish welfare state. American Ethnologist, 45(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar