Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

In this paper, I will discuss the work of UK government scientists charged with researching 'pest control'. I draw on recent scholarship on the mutual constitution of 'good science' and modes of care, to understand British environmental knowledge controversies involving wildlife, science and policy.

Paper long abstract:

The Pest Infestation Control Laboratories (PICL) was a British government research institute, responsible for understanding and preventing how nonhuman organisms compromised human food supplies. Among other disciplines, PICL scientists practised applied ecology and ethology, studying the interactions of wild animal populations with humans, and acting as arbiters of what species should be considered by the state to be 'pests'. PICL was a key source of scientific knowledge and expertise for a series of contentious science-policy debates in the UK, including myxomatosis in rabbits; the exclusion of rabies from the UK; seal culling in Scotland; the eradication of invasive species; and controlling of badgers infected with bovine tuberculosis.

This paper will build upon recent scholarship investigating the mutual constitution of 'good science' and care in laboratories (e.g. Kirk, 2017; Druglitrø, 2017; Mol, Moser, & Pols, 2010). Like some of their colleagues in the lab, the field scientists of PICL were deeply committed to researching with animals as 'humanely' as possible. However, these applied ecologists faced unique challenges of doing so in the unpredictable spaces of field, farm and forest, while also producing policies for 'pest control'. PICL scientists collaborated with animal welfare organisations to do this, building standardised working practices for conservation and field biology. Their work combined anthropocentric priorities and the practicalities of killing, with care for ecosystems and preventing animal suffering. I will contrast PICL's modes of care with those of animal protection activists, showing how these moral differences can lie at the heart of environmental knowledge controversies.