Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 16:1-25.
doi: 10.1080/14702541.2024.2378308. Online ahead of print.

Amphibious ethics and speculative immersions: laboratory aquariums as a site for developing a more inclusive animal geography

Affiliations

Amphibious ethics and speculative immersions: laboratory aquariums as a site for developing a more inclusive animal geography

Beth Greenhough et al. Scott Geogr J. .

Abstract

Human capacity to sense and respond to the suffering of non-human animals is key to animal care and welfare. Intuitively these modes of relating seem best suited to interactions between humans and warm-blooded mammals who share human-like facial features and characteristics. Animal geographers and those working in animal welfare have noted the challenges that humans face in learning to care about fishes, and how this leads to welfare guidelines and regulations which are poorly suited to aquatic species. This paper draws on interviews with laboratory aquarists and biomedical researchers to explore how they have learnt to sense and respond to the needs of fishes in the laboratory. We offer two key observations. Firstly, despite significant bodily differences, humans find ways to empathise with fishes. Secondly, whilst observations of bodies and behaviours predominate in laboratory mammal welfare assessments, when working with fishes water quality serves as an important proxy for species health. We conclude that the laboratory aquarium signifies methodological and conceptual limits in contemporary animal geographies. We further argue that these barriers should be understood as cultural, and - as we demonstrate - that there is consequently scope and capacity to reach beyond them by engaging in amphibious ethics and speculative immersions.

Keywords: Animal geographies; empathy; ethics; fish; marginalisation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Image of laboratory fish facility with racks of fish tanks. Image from Understanding Animal Research (https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk). Reproduced under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
A set of images designed to teach those working with fish how to recognise common illnesses. Images A–F all show fish with signs of illness. Images G and H show two different strains of healthy fish. Source: Sabrautzki et al. (2021). The publisher for this copyrighted material is Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. publishers. Reproduced with permission (reference 5817130093247).

Similar articles

References

    1. Acampora, R. R. (2006). Corporeal compassion. University of Pittsburgh Press.
    1. Ahmed, S. (2007). A phenomenology of whiteness. Feminist Theory, 8(2), 149–168. 10.1177/1464700107078139 - DOI
    1. Alaimo, S. (2019). Introduction: Science studies and the blue humanities. Configurations, 27(4), 429–432. 10.1353/con.2019.0028 - DOI
    1. Allmark-Kent, C. (2021). How to read fishes: Science, empathy, and Salar the Salmon. Society & Animals, 30(2), 170–187. 10.1163/15685306-12341569 - DOI
    1. Anand, N. (2023). Anthroposea: Planning future ecologies in Mumbai’s wetscapes. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 41(4), 683–706. 10.1177/02637758231183439 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources