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, circa 1947-1968

ISIS

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 62-94

  Kirk, Robert G W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; DIAGNOSIS, MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; HISTORY; HUMAN; LABORATORY; MALE; ORGANIZATION; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMAL WELFARE; ANIMALS; ANIMALS, LABORATORY; GREAT BRITAIN; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCE; LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES; MALE;

EID: 77954006424     PISSN: 00211753     EISSN: 15456994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/652689     Document Type: Article

References (215)

1. For the epigraph see" Conference on the Supply of Experimental Animals SEA/M1/2," 24 Sept. 1945, p. 3, File FD1/382, Medical Research Council Archive, National Archives (hereafter NA), Kew, United Kingdom.
2. Ibid., pp. 10, 14.
3. On Glover see E. G. White, "Dr. R. E. Glover," University of Liverpool Recorder, 1976, 70:15.
4. On Lane-Petter see Anon., "William Lane-Petter, May 9th 1912-January 8th 1988," ILAR News, 1988, 30:18.
5. For breeders' backgrounds see "Conference on the Supply of Experimental Animals SEA/M1/2," pp. 6-10.
6. See Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in the Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992);
7. Bonnie Tocher Clause, "The Wistar Rat as a Right Choice: Establishing Mammalian Standards and the Ideal of a Standardized Mammal," Journal of the History of Biology, 1993, 26:329-349;
8. Robert E. Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1994);
9. Jean-Paul Gaudillière, "Circulating Mice and Viruses: The Jackson Memorial Laboratory, the National Cancer Institute, and the Genetics of Breast Cancer, 1930-1965," in The Practices of Human Genetics, ed. Michael Fortun and Everett Mendelsohn (London: Kluwer, 1999), pp. 89-124;
10. C. A. Logan, "Before There Were Standards: The Role of Test Animals in the Production of Empirical Generality in Physiology," J. Hist. Biol., 2002, 35:329-363;
11. Angela N. H. Creager, The Life of a Virus: Tobacco Mosaic Virus as an Experimental Model, 1930-1965 (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2002);
12. Karen Rader, Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900-1955 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 2004).
13. Kohler, Lords of the Fly;
14. Rader, Making Mice.
15. Clarke and Fujimura, eds., Right Tools for the Job (cit. n. 3), p. 5.
16. Adele E. Clarke, "Research Materials and Reproductive Science in the United States, 1910-1940," in Physiology in the American Context, 1850-1940, ed. Gerald L. Geison (Bethesda, Md.: American Physiological Society, 1987), pp. 323-350, on p. 343 n 12.
17. Regarding the new reliance on animals see W. F. Bynum, "Cest un malade: Animal Models and Concepts of Human Diseases," Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences, 1990, 45:397-413.
18. Christoph Gradmann, "Locating Therapeutic Vaccines in Nineteenth-Century History," Science in Context, 2008, 21:145-160;
19. Axel C. Hüntelmann, "The Dynamics of Wertbestimmung," ibid., pp. 229-252;
20. Jonathan Simon, "Monitoring the Stable at the Pasteur Institute," ibid., pp. 181-200.
21. Some historians have recognized, albeit in passing, that the largest group of users of organisms developed for genetic and cancer research were pathologists; see Jean-Paul Gaudillière, "The Invisible Industrialist," in The Science-Industry Nexus, ed. Karl Grandin, Nina Wormbs, and Sven Widmalm (Sagamore Beach, Mass.: Science History Publications, 2004), pp. 169-218, esp. p. 180.
22. On standards see Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000);
23. Martha Lapland and Susan Leigh Star, Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 2009);
24. Gili S. Drori, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer, Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 2003), esp. pp. 280-292.
25. On "biocapital" see K. Sunder Rajan, Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 2006);
26. Nikolas Rose, The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 2007);
27. Sarah Franklin, Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Genealogy (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 2007).
28. A useful review is Stefan Helmreich, "Species of Biocapital," Science as Culture, 2008, 12:463-478.
29. The animals considered here are not necessarily "models," though they could be used in that way and increasingly were from the 1960s, as "modeling" became more prevalent. The bureau's primary concern in its early years was the animal as a diagnostic tool, distinct from a model system of a disease. On the animal model see Evelyn Fox Keller, "Models of and Models For: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Biology," Philosophy of Science, 2000, 67:S72-S86;
30. Angela N. H. Creager, Elizabeth Lunbeck, and M. Norton Wise, eds., Science without Laws: Model Systems, Cases, Exemplary Narratives (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 2007).
31. See L. S. Reich, The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876-1926 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985);
32. David A. Hounshell and John Kenly Smith, Jr., Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R & D, 1902-1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988);
33. John Patrick Swann, Academic Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1988);
34. W. Bernard Carlson, Innovation as a Social Process: Elihu Thomson and the Rise of General Electric, 1870-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991);
35. Viviane Quirke, Collaboration in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Changing Relationships in Britain and France, 1935-1965 (London: Routledge, 2006);
36. Julie Anderson, Francis Neary, and John V. Pickstone, Surgeons, Manufacturers, and Patients: A Transatlantic History of Total Hip Replacement (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007).
37. E.g., in 1948 the British government established the National Research and Development Corporation to facilitate relations between science and industry in an attempt to avoid repeating the penicillin debacle, where British innovation had not been capitalized upon. See S. T. Keith, "Inventions, Patents, and Commercial Development from Governmentally Funded Research in Great Britain: The Origins of the National Research and Development Corporation," Minerva, 1981, 19:92-122.
38. For a broad history of the relationship between science and industry in Britain see David Edgerton, Science, Technology, and the British Industrial "Decline," 1870-1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
39. Roy MacLeod, "Science for Imperial Efficiency and Social Change: Reflections on the British Science Guild, 1905-1936," Public Understanding of Science, 1994, 3:155-193;
40. W. McGucken, Scientists, Society, and State: The Social Relations of Science Movement in Great Britain, 1931-1947 (Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press, 1984).
41. Regarding the need for a supply of standardized laboratory animals see Robert G. W. Kirk, "Wanted-Standard Guinea Pigs: Standardization and the Experimental Animal Market in Britain, c. 1919-1947," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 39:280-291;
42. on the twofold purpose of the bureau see "Conference on the Supply of Experimental Animals SEA/M1/2" (cit. n. 1), pp. 14-15. The conference's work was undertaken by a subcommittee consisting of John Beattie (chairman), Alfred Louis Bacharach (hon. secretary), the biochemist Stanley Nicholas Farmer, the statistician and geneticist Kenneth Mather, the biochemist D. McClean, the bacteriologist H. J. Parish, the veterinarian A. W. Stableforth, and the physiologist James Yule Bogue (who later withdrew, to be replaced by the animal pathologist James Robert Maitland Innes).
43. A. L. Bacharach to A. S. Parkes, 8 Apr. 1947, NA FD1/383. This is not to deny that the term "experimental animal" was in use prior to 1947; rather, I mean to note a proportional shift in terminology from "experimental" to "laboratory" after this date.
44. F. A. E. Crew to W. Fletcher, 10 Dec. 1925, NA FD1/1372. Crew was the first in Britain to import and breed the American Wistar rat.
45. On the topic of establishing a laboratory animal "trade organization" see "Advisory Committee on the Supply of Laboratory Animals, Minutes of the Third Meeting," 20 July 1948, p. 3, NA FD1/383. The quotation comes from R. E. Glover to A. Landsborough Thomson, 27 Oct. 1947, NA FD1/383 (Glover is explaining that he has understood the limitations of the bureau's role).
46. On the instigation of the survey see "Progress Report 1949-1950, Laboratory Animals Bureau," 1 May 1950, p. 3, NA FD1/378;
47. Regarding the findings see W. Lane-Petter, A. B. Barber, and H. J. King, "Survey of Laboratory Animals in Great Britain," British Veterinary Journal, 1955, 3:282-299.
48. On the importance of quantification see Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1995).
49. For the cultural authority of the census as a means to constitute "governmental objects" see Matthew G. Hannah, Governmentality and the Mastery of Territory in Nineteenth-Century America (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
50. See also Michel Foucault, "Governmentality," in Power: Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, ed. James D. Faubion (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2002), pp. 201-222.
51. I use "constitute" in the sense articulated by Ian Hacking. See, in particular, Ian Hacking, "Biopower and the Avalanche of Numbers," Humanities in Society, 1982, 5:279-295;
52. Hacking, "Making up People," in Historical Ontology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2004), pp. 99-114.
53. "Progress Report 1949-1950, Laboratory Animals Bureau," p. 3 (quotation);
54. "Notes on the Work of the Bureau," ca. 1950, p. 1, NA FD1/378 (obstruction by dealers);
55. "Laboratory Animal Bureau-Supplies of Animals," Dec. 1949, p. 1, NA FD1/383 (the bureau at the center of a newly constituted market).
56. "Advisory Committee on the Supply of Laboratory Animals, Minutes of 5th Meeting," 23 Nov. 1949, p. 4, NA FD1/383 (quotation);
57. "Report of the Bureau from October 1948 to September 1949," p. 1, NA FD1/383. Dealing was problematic because the practice of purchasing animals from various locations and housing them together encouraged the spread of infections; thus the eradication of dealers and the reduction of disease were related goals.
58. "Advisory Committee on the Supply of Laboratory Animals, Minutes of 4th Meeting," 22 Apr. 1949, p. 2, NA FD1/383 (quotation).
59. The accreditation scheme first covered guinea pigs and later included mice and rabbits, these being the most popular species utilized for routine medical and toxicity testing and bioassay. See W. Lane-Petter, "The Accreditation Scheme for Laboratory Animals," Monthly Bulletin of the Ministry of Health, 1953, 12:165-175.
60. "Outline of a Scheme for the Accreditation of Commercial Breeders of Guinea Pigs, Rabbits, and Mice Destined for Laboratory Use," NA MAF189/676 (compliance with standards);
61. Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter, Dec. 1950, p. 2 (remarks on "better breeders"). Reports detailing accreditation visits and the varied breeding practices observed can be found in NA MAF189/676.
62. See W. E. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), esp. pp. 122-127. Bikjer is particularly useful in that his articulation of the "technological frame" moves beyond the psychosocial to stress that "interactions in relevant social groups are never governed by cognitive and social factors alone. Artefacts, as stabilized in previous construction processes, play a crucial role too" (p. 124).
63. Regarding cooperation in the matter of the pathology service see "Memorandum on Co-operation between the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Laboratory Animals Bureau in the Diagnosis of Disease amongst Breeders' Stocks of Laboratory Animals," ca. 1950, NA FD1/378. The steps taken to address infections that were discovered worked well in practice, with total slaughter required only about 25 percent of the time. See W. Lane-Petter to G. S. Wilson, 24 July 1952, NA FD1/379.
64. "A Livestock Insurance for Breeding Guinea Pigs Accredited by the Laboratory Animals Bureau," July 1952, NA FD1/379. The insurance was underwritten by Arthur R. Jones, Ltd. (Incorporated Insurance Brokers), Leeds.
65. On the internalization of discipline see Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979).
66. For risk management as a technique of governance see Mitchell Dean, Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (London: Sage, 1999), Ch. 9.
67. E.g., a severe guinea pig glut occurred between 1948 and 1950, as a "shortage of the late war years, and other factors, attracted a large number of would-be-breeders immediately after the war," causing "the biggest glut in recent years." The inevitable collapse in prices and production led to a severe shortage in the summer of 1951: as "confidence in the future of the business had been badly shaken, the normal seasonal breeding programme was not undertaken." W. Lane-Petter, "Supplies: Guinea-Pigs," Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter, 1951, 2:i.
68. The military antecedent has been identified as an early example of the manifestation of modern disciplinary power; see Foucault, Discipline and Punish (cit. n. 23), pp. 187-188.
69. W. Lane-Petter, "The Place of Laboratory Animals in the Scientific Life of a Country," Impact of Science on Society, 1959, 9:178-196, on pp. 180, 195.
70. Michel Foucault, The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1998).
71. "The Need for a National Policy for the Supply of Experimental Animals," ca. 1943, NA FD1/6244. In its original form the committee consisted of A. S. Parkes (physiologist and chairman), A. L. Bacharach (representing the Conference on the Supply of Experimental Animals), W. P. Blount (Ministry of Supply), A. E. Childs, W. S. Gordon (Agricultural Research Council), K. Mather (geneticist and statistician who had served on the Conference on the Supply of Experimental Animals working committee), A. A. Miles (biochemist), R. M. A. Welchman, F. R. Winton (pharmacologist), Samson Wright (physiologist), and the bureau director: NA FD1/383.
72. For state planning of science see Association of Scientific Workers, Science and the Nation (London: Penguin, 1947);
73. for the "freedom of science" response see J. R. Baker, Science and the Planned State (London: Allen & Unwin, 1945).
74. On the accommodation reached see McGucken, Scientists, Society, and State (cit. n. 11), esp. pp. 265-300;
75. Gary Werskey, The Visible College (London: Free Association Books, 1988).
76. P. J. Gummett and G. L. Price, "An Approach to the Central Planning of British Science: The Formation of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy," Minerva, 1977, 15:119-143;
77. Gummett, Scientists in Whitehall (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1980), esp. pp. 31-36, 218-225;
78. Vannevar Bush, Science-The Endless Frontier (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945). The Advisory Council on Scientific Policy was established in response to recommendations made by the Committee on Future Scientific Policy (the Barlow Committee). It continued the work of the wartime Scientific Advisory Council to the War Cabinet in a civilian context.
79. Lane-Petter to Landsborough Thomson, 7 Nov. 1950, p. 2, NA FD1/380. As laboratory animal care and management did not formally exist as a disciplinary category, relevant knowledge was widely dispersed across the scientific literature. See "Notes on the Work of the Bureau" (cit. n. 17), p. 8.
80. For Lane-Petter's speculations about infection see "Notes on the Work of the Bureau," pp. 10-11.
81. Regarding the rejection of his proposals on financial grounds see Wilson to F. H. K. Green, 11 Nov. 1950;
82. Wilson to Green, 22 Jan. 1951;
83. Green to Lane-Petter, 30 Jan. 1951: NA FD1/380.
84. For Lane-Petter's "interpretation" see Lane-Petter to Green, 31 Jan. 1951, NA FD1/380;
85. Lane-Petter, "Place of Laboratory Animals in the Scientific Life of a Country" (cit. n. 26).
86. On Landsborough Thomson's agreement with Parkes see "Interview with Dr. A. S. Parkes, 11 Oct. 1950," NA FD1/383;
87. File No. 710/a/1 F H K Green, 29 Nov. 1950, NA FD1/380.
88. Boots, Burroughs Wellcome, British Drug Houses, May & Baker, Herts Pharmaceuticals, and ICI had independently approached the bureau: NA FD1/8680. Funds for the project were donated by British Insulin Manufacturers, Distillers Company (Biochemicals), Ltd., Crookes Laboratories, Parke Davis & Co., Ltd., Organon Laboratories, Ltd., Glaxo Laboratories, Ltd., Roche Products, Ltd., Smith and Newby Research, Ltd., and May and Baker, Ltd.: NA FD1/8680.
89. "The Use of Mice in Large Numbers for Scientific Purposes: Supplementary Memorandum," Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter, 1952, 3. Mice were used for numerous routine purposes, including bioassay, serum titration, toxicity testing, compound screening, chemotherapeutic trials, and virulence tests.
90. Abigail Woods has argued that slaughter was a peculiarly British approach to animal disease control; see Woods, "The British Response to Foot and Mouth Disease, 1920-2001," paper presented at the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine, University College, London, 17 Oct. 2001.
91. "Ectromelia in Mice-An Experiment in Vaccination: Supplementary Memorandum," Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter, 1953, 6:4.
92. A. A. Tuffery, "The Laboratory Mouse in Great Britain, II: Intercurrent Infection (Infantile Diarrhoea)," Veterinary Record, 1956, 68:433-440;
93. Tuffery, "The Laboratory Mouse in Great Britain, III: Intercurrent Infection (Ectromelia)," ibid., pp. 478-481;
94. Tuffery, "The Laboratory Mouse in Great Britain, IV: Intercurrent Infection (Tyzzer's Disease)," ibid., pp. 511-515;
95. Tuffery, "The Laboratory Mouse in Great Britain, V: Intercurrent Infection (Salmonellis)," ibid., pp. 568-571.
96. Tuffery, "Laboratory Mouse in Great Britain, II," p. 435.
97. W. Lane-Petter, "Why Laboratory Animals Die," Nature, 1956, 177:1198-1199.
98. "Progress Report 1953-1960 of the Laboratory Animals Centre," 24 Feb. 1961, NA FD12/253;
99. A. A. Tuffery, "Infections in Laboratory Mice," Oct. 1957, p. 1, NA FD1/8680.
100. Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter, 1956, 13;
101. A. A. Tuffery, "The Health of Laboratory Mice: A Comparison of General Health in Two Breeding Units Where Different Systems Are Employed," Journal of Hygiene, 1959, 57:386-402.
102. Steve Woolgar, "Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials," in A Sociology of Monsters, ed. John Law (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 58-102, on p. 59.
103. See also Susan Leigh Star, "Triangulating Clinical and Basic Research: British Localizationists, 1870-1906," History of Science, 1986, 24:29-48.
104. The notion of dynamic co-constitution is comparable to Hacking's more philosophically oriented "dynamic nominalism," although the former would place greater emphasis on material agency. See Hacking, "Making up People" (cit. n. 16).
105. The co-constitution of user/producer identity across scientific, industrial, and consumer cultures has been a growing interest in technology studies. See Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch, eds., How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005).
106. For related historical work see Jean-Paul Gaudillière and Ilana Löwy, The Invisible Industrialist: Manufacturers and the Production of Scientific Knowledge (London: Macmillan, 1998).
107. Clause, "Wistar Rat as a Right Choice" (cit. n. 3);
108. Kohler, Lords of the Fly (cit. n. 3);
109. Ilana Löwy and Jean-Paul Gaudillière, "Disciplining Cancer: Mice and the Practice of Genetic Purity," in Invisible Industrialist, ed. Gaudillière and Löwy, pp. 209-249;
110. Gaudillière, "Circulating Mice and Viruses" (cit. n. 3); and Rader, Making Mice (cit. n. 3).
111. Ilana Löwy has stressed the importance of purpose and disciplinary context in shaping laboratory animals; see Löwy, "The Experimental Body," in Medicine in the Twentieth Century, ed. Roger Cooter and John V. Pickstone (Amsterdam: Harwood, 2000), pp. 435-449.
112. For the development of inbred animals in British genetic and cancer research see Paolo Palladino, "On Writing the Histor(ies) of Modern Medicine," Rethinking History, 1999, 3:271-288;
113. Jennifer Marie, "The Importance of Place: A History of Genetics in 1930s Britain" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. College, London, 2004).
114. Regarding dependence on the commercial market see Kirk, "'Wanted-Standard Guinea Pigs'" (cit. n. 12). The advent of transgenic laboratory animals in the late twentieth century coincided with the decline in routine use of animals for biomedical standardization, medical diagnostics, and, to a lesser extent, toxicity testing, reversing the pattern described here.
115. H. Allan and F. Dickens, "The Zondek and Aschheim Test for Pregnancy," Lancet, 1930.
116. B. F. Hill, "Laboratory Animal Standardization in the United States of America," in Notes for Breeders of Common Laboratory Animals, ed. G. Porter and W. Lane-Petter (London/New York: Academic, 1962), pp. 180-205.
117. See also Rader, Making Mice (cit. n. 3), pp. 216-220.
118. See Karen Rader, "The Origins of Mouse Genetics: Beyond the Bussey Institution, I: Cold Spring Harbor: The Station for Experimental Evolution and the 'Mouse Club of America,'" Mammalian Genome, 1997, 8:464-466;
119. Rader, "The Origins of Mouse Genetics: Beyond the Bussey Institution, II: Defining the Problem of Mouse Supply: The 1928 National Research Council Committee on Experimental Plants and Animals,"
120. ibid., 2002, 13:2-4.
121. A. L. Bacharach, "The Albino Rat in Biochemical Investigation," Pharmaceutical Journal and Pharmacist, 1926, 62:629-630, on p. 629;
122. Lane-Petter to Landsborough Thomson, 7 Nov. 1950, NA FD1/380. Bacharach was a member of the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society and was directly involved with the work of the Working Men's College in north London.
123. See H. Jephcott, "A. L. Bacharach," Chemistry and Industry, 1966, 40:1651-1653.
124. "Advisory Committee on the Supply of Laboratory Animals, Minutes of the Third Meeting" (cit. n. 15). For Grüneberg's work see, e.g., Hans Grüneberg, The Genetics of the Mouse (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1943).
125. On Grüneberg see D. Lewis and D. M. Hunt, "Hans Grüneberg, 26 May 1907-23 October 1982," Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 1984, 30:226-247.
126. W. Lane-Petter, "An Intensive System for Guinea-Pigs," J. Hygiene, 1954, 52:151-154;
127. Lane-Petter, "Intensive Breeding of Mice,"
128. ibid., 1955, 53:234-238.
129. "Conference on the Supply of Experimental Animals SEA/M1/2" (cit. n. 1), p. 10;
130. Bacharach, "Albino Rat in Biochemical Investigation" (cit. n. 49), p. 629.
131. Bacharach's knowledge of inbreeding was drawn from the Harvard geneticists Edward East and Donald Jones; see E. M. East and D. F. Jones, Inbreeding and Outbreeding (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1919).
132. See, e.g., C. J. Davies, The Theory and Practice of Breeding to Type (Manchester: Our Dogs Publishing, 1929).
133. Regarding Lane-Petter's attempts to eradicate endemic infection via selective breeding see "Proposed Investigation of the Quality of Mice," ca. 1950, NA FD1/8680. A useful text summarizing research in inheritance of resistance to infection is A. Bradford Hill, The Inheritance of Resistance to Bacterial Infection in Animal Species (London: Medical Research Council, 1934). Lane-Petter's work on inheritance of resistance to infection was never published and so may have either been unsuccessful or a rhetorical ploy to justify his breeding work to the MRC.
134. R. F. Parrot and M. F. W. Festing, Standardised Laboratory Animals: A Guide to the Genetically and Microbiologically Defined Colonies Maintained at the Laboratory Animals Centre (Carshalton: Medical Research Council Laboratory Animals Centre, 1971), p. 32 (Lane-Petter's acquisition of a pair of mice);
135. W. Lane-Petter, "Research Activities," Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter, 1952, 3:6.
136. "Memorandum on the Use of Pure Line Mice in Medical and Biological Research-Submitted to the Advisory Committee on the Supply of Laboratory Animals by H. Grüneberg," 1950, NA FD 1/383.
137. H. Grüneberg, "Variation within Inbred Strains of Mice," Nature, 1954, 173:674-676;
138. M. S. Deol, Grüneberg, A. G. Searle, and G. M. Truslove, "Genetical Differentiation Involving Morphological Characters in an Inbred Strain of Mice, I: A British Branch of the C57BL Strain," Journal of Morphology, 1957, 100:345-376;
139. J. R. Carpenter, Grüneberg, and E. S. Russell, "Genetical Differentiation Involving Morphological Characters in an Inbred Strain of Mice, II: The American Branches of the C57BL and C57BR Strains," ibid., pp. 377-388.
140. For an independent but analogous report of the same phenomenon see E. L. Green and W. L. Russell, "A Difference in Skeletal Type between Reciprocal Hybrids of Two Inbred Strains of Mice (C57blk and C3H)," Genetics, 1951, 36:641-651;
141. Green, "A Skeletal Difference between Sub Lines of the C3H Strain of Mice," Science, 1953, 119:81-82.
142. J. D. Biggers and P. J. Claringbold, "Why Use Inbred Lines?" Nature, 1954, 174:596-597;
143. Grüneberg, "Variation within Inbred Strains of Mice," p. 675;
144. A. McLaren and D. Michie, "Are Inbred Strains Suitable for Bio-Assay?" Nature, 1954, 173:686-687, on p. 687;
145. I. M. Lerner, Genetic Homeostasis (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1954).
146. A. McLaren and D. Michie, "The Importance of Being Cross-Bred," New Biology, 1955, 19:48-69.
147. These events related to the wider (and again sudden) interest in the phenomena of heterosis or "hybrid vigour"; see, e.g., K. Mather, "A Discussion on Hybrid Vigour," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences, 1955, 144:143-223.
148. D. Michie, "Comments and Discussion," in Laboratory Animals Bureau Collected Papers, Vol. 3: The Breeding of Laboratory Animals (London: HMSO, 1955), pp. 37-48, on pp. 34-35.
149. Dr. B. S. Lush to Lane-Petter, 23 Apr. 1954;
150. Landsborough Thompson to Lane-Petter, 23 Mar. 1954: NA FD1/8681.
151. Lane-Petter, "Intensive Breeding of Mice" (cit. n. 51).
152. W. Lane-Petter and J. L. Bloom, "Control of Genetic Variation," in Laboratory Animals Bureau Collected Papers, Vol. 6: Humane Technique in the Laboratory (London: HMSO, 1957), pp. 51-58.
153. Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter, 12 July 1956 ("comparison of their usefulness"), 14 July 1957 ("breeding satisfactorily");
154. Laboratory Animals Centre News Letter, Jan. 1959 (on the new strains and the departure of Bloom). The strains were LAB Grey, BALB/c, A, AKR, DBA/1, C57BR/cd, and CE. All but the LAB Grey were genetically standardized.
155. A. M. Brown, "The Pattern, Sensitivity, and Precision of the Response to Insulin in Random Bred, Inbred, and Hybrid Strains of Mice," Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 1961, 13:670-678;
156. Brown, "Sleeping Time Responses of Mice-Random Bred, Inbred, and f1 Hybrids-to Pentobarbitone Sodium," ibid., pp. 679-687;
157. Brown, "Matching the Animal with the Experiment," in Animals for Research: Principles of Breeding and Management, ed. W. Lane-Petter (New York: Academic, 1963), pp. 261-285, on p. 261 (quotation).
158. For historical and sociological analysis of the animal as a tool see Clarke and Fujimura, The Right Tools for the Job (cit. n. 3).
159. A report encompassing this period (and more) appeared in 1961: "Progress Report 1953-1960 of the Laboratory Animals Centre" (cit. n. 40).
160. On Lane-Petter's agenda see Lane-Petter, "Place of Laboratory Animals in the Scientific Life of a Country" (cit. n. 26), p. 182;
161. "Informal Conference on the Husbandry of Animals," pp. 4-6, ca. 1956, NA FD1/8684.
162. On standardization and the League of Nations see Pauline M. H. Mazumdar, "In the Silence of the Laboratory: The League of Nations Standardizes Syphilis Tests," Social History of Medicine, 2003, 16:437-459.
163. A. Landsborough Thomson, Half a Century of Medical Research (London: HMSO, 1975), Vol. 2, pp. 244-254;
164. Joan Austoker and Linda Bryder, "The National Institute of Medical Research and Related Activities of the MRC," in Historical Perspectives on the Role of the MRC, ed. Austoker and Bryder (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), pp. 35-58, esp. pp. 53-56.
165. Joseph Needham, for example, was recalled from China to develop UNESCO's Division of Natural Sciences.
166. J. Huxley, "International Needs and Scientific Achievements," Listener, 1933, 10:940-942, on p. 942.
167. Huxley was also aware that "standardization so far can only be achieved by the use of experimental animals" and that without it "we would not dare use such wonderful treatments as antitoxin for diphtheria": Huxley, "Science and Health," ibid., pp. 706-739, on p. 708.
168. For Huxley's importance and legacy at UNESCO see A.-M. M'Bow, "Preface," in Julian Huxley: Scientist and World Citizen, ed. J. R. Baker (Paris: UNESCO, 1978);
169. W. H. G. Armytage, "The First Director-General of UNESCO," in Evolutionary Studies: A Centenary Celebration of the Life of Julian Huxley, ed. M. Keynes and G. A. Harrison (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 186-193.
170. Baker's authorship of a eulogy of Huxley is indicative of the consensus that quickly emerged between advocates of socialist state planning and the Freedom of Science movement, of which Baker was a leading voice in the 1940s: Baker, ed., Julian Huxley, pp. 5-51.
171. W. Lane-Petter, "The International Committee on Laboratory Animals," Nature, 1957, 179:240-241;
172. S. Erichsen and C. E. Hopla, History of the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (Oslo/Oklahoma City: ICLA, 2004).
173. J. Bleby, "The Laboratory Animals Centre," in UFAW, The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory Animals (London: Livingstone, 1967), pp. 12-27, esp. pp. 22-26; the work at the Centre de Sélection des Animaux de Laboratoire is discussed on p. 23.
174. Erichsen and Hopla, History of the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (cit. n. 71), p. 52.
175. To cite just one example: Lane-Petter was invited to Norway to advise on the structuring of animal provision. See C. Lerche, "Dyreforsø ksvirksomheten i søkelyset," in Særtrykk av Tidsskrift for Den norske lægeforening [Laboratory Animal Practice in the Limelight], Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, 1962, 7:423-426 (this was a special issue of the journal). I thank Tone Druglitr for providing this reference and for discussing her developing work on the history of laboratory animal provision in the Norwegian context.
176. On the reciprocal learning that took place see Lane-Petter to R. H. L. Cohen, 2 Mar. 1954, NA FD1/8681.
177. On gnotobiotics see Gerard James Fitzgerald, "From Prevention to Infection: Intramural Aerobiology, Biomedical Technology, and the Origins of Biological Warfare Research in the United States, 1910-1955" (Ph.D. diss., Carnegie Mellon Univ., 2003).
178. For a contemporary overview see P. C. Trexler, "Rationale for the Development of Gnotobiotics," Laboratory Animals, 1978, 12:257-262.
179. The conferences were reported annually in the Laboratory Animals Bureau News Letter. The Animal Care Panel was influenced by a British organization, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare-again demonstrating international reciprocity. See R. G. W. Kirk, "Reliable Animals, Responsible Scientists: Constructing Standard Laboratory Animals in Britain, c. 1919-1976" (Ph.D. diss., University College, London, 2005).
180. P. C. Trexler, "Progress Report on the Use of Plastics in Germfree Equipment," Proceedings of the Animal Care Panel, 1959, 9:119-125.
181. See also J. A. Reyniers, "The Control of Contamination in the Colonies of Laboratory Animals by the Use of Germ-Free Techniques," ibid., 1957, 7:9-29;
182. Trexler, "Germ-Free Isolators," Scientific American, 1964, 211:78.
183. Regarding Lane-Petter's conclusion see W. Lane-Petter, "Sophisticated Laboratory Animals," in The Scientific Basis of Medicine: Annual Reviews, ed. I. Gilliland and J. Francis (London: Athlone, 1966), pp. 54-70.
184. The first unit for breeding specific pathogen free animals in Britain was established by ICI, Alderley Park, Cheshire, as part of extensive new laboratories that opened in 1957. See "The New Research Centre," Guardian, 1 Oct. 1957, p. 8.
185. "Informal Conference on the Husbandry of Animals" (cit. n. 67), pp. 3-5.
186. Landsborough Thomson's retirement is noted in an obituary: "Sir Landsborough Thomson: Ornithology and Medical Research," Times, 11 une 1977, p. 16, col. F.
187. "Progress Report 1953-1960 of the Laboratory Animals Centre" (cit. n. 40), p. 6 (precautions and restrictions for workers);
188. Anonymous to Robert G. W. Kirk, 20 Aug. 2007 (gardener's access);
189. E. M. B. Clements to Mr. Whittaker, memo, ca. 1961, NA FD23 407 (quotation). Because of the requirements of pathogenic security, only connecting corridors allowed natural light and a view to the garden.
190. Other terms used to describe such animals include "clean," "disease free," "pathogen free," "caesarean started," and "caesarean derived."
191. M. Lev, "Germ-Free Animals," in Animals for Research, ed. Lane-Petter (cit. n. 65), pp. 139-176.
192. "Laboratory Animal Advisory Committee Minutes of the First Meeting," 1 Apr. 1964, pp. 1-2, NA FD 9/387 (introduction of animals into the new facility);
193. M. Dinsley, "The Case for the Healthy Inbred Mouse," in Laboratory Animals Centre Collected Papers, Vol. 12: Choice of Experimental Animal (London: HMSO, 1963), pp. 47-55, on p. 53 ("upgrading" system);
194. E. S. Russell, "New Trends in the Use of Genetically Controlled Laboratory Animals in Biomedical Research," Proc. Animal Care Panel, 1960, 10:167-176, on p. 175.
195. Laboratory Animals Centre News Letter, 1964, 27:4 (establishment of the modified traffic-light system); File No. E 70/90 E 230 76, 4 May 1965, NA FD12/255 ("fulfilling a necessary function");
196. W. Lane-Petter, "Discussion," in Laboratory Animals Centre Collected Papers, Vol. 12, pp. 54-55, on p. 55.
197. Lane-Petter resigned and took up the directorship of Carworth Europe, based at Huntingdon; he remained there until he moved to Cambridge to direct the university's Central Animal Service from 1972 until his retirement in 1977.
198. "Laboratory Animal Advisory Committee Minutes of the First Meeting" (cit. n. 82), p. 2; "Announcements," Nature, 1965, 205:452 ("unable to recommend the proposal"); and Anonymous to Kirk, 20 Aug. 2007.
199. "Laboratory Animals Centre Progress Report 1965-1968," 22 Apr. 1969, pp. 1-2 (the various departments), 8 (sales figures), NA FD12/259.
200. The facility employed a full-time veterinary pathologist (D. Blackmore), two geneticists (M. Festing and M. Cryer), a microbiologist (R. Hare), a parasitologist (D. Owen), a veterinary surgeon (G. Townsend), a nutritionist (G. Porter), and several technical and clerical support staff.
201. Laboratory Animals Centre News Letter, 1968, 35 (nations where animals were sent);
202. J. Bleby, "Establishment of a Specific Pathogen Free Cat (Felis Catus) Colony," Journal of Small Animal Practice, 1969, 10:237-248.
203. "Laboratory Animals Centre Progress Report 1965-1968" (cit. n. 86), p. 12;
204. G. H. Townsend, "The Grading of Commercially Bred Laboratory Animals," Vet. Rec., 1968, 85:225-226 ("likely to become the standard laboratory grades").
205. Parrot and Festing, Standardised Laboratory Animals (cit. n. 55), pp. vi (on what the publication offered), 20 (characterizing BALB/c as "fairly docile").
206. See Peter Keating, Alberto Cambrosio, and Michael Mackenzie, "The Tools of the Discipline: Standards, Models, and Measures in the Affinity/Avidity Controversy in Immunology," in Right Tools for the Job, ed. Clarke and Fujimura (cit. n. 3), pp. 312-354.
207. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1989), pp. 342 (quotation), 343;
208. J. Huxley, "The Growth of a Group Mind in Britain under the Influence of War," Hibbert Journal, 1941, 39:337-350.
209. C. Loft, Government, the Railways, and the Modernization of Britain: Beeching's Last Trains (London: Routledge, 2006).
210. On standardization and the nationalization of British industry see M. Chick, Industrial Policy in Britain, 1945-1951: Economic Planning, Nationalisation, and the Labour Governments (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
211. Huxley, "International Needs and Scientific Achievements" (cit. n. 70), p. 942.
212. For the British debate over standardization and its association with the United States see J. Zeitlin, "Americanisation and Its Limits: The Reconstruction of Britain's Engineering Industries, 1945-1955," in Governance, Industry, and Labour Markets in Britain and France: The Modernising State in the Mid-Twentieth Century, ed. N. Whiteside and R. Salais (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 96-116.
213. Susan Leigh Star and James Griesemer, "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations,' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939," Social Studies of Science, 1989, 19:387-420, on p. 393;
214. Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987), pp. 226-227.
215. For a useful overview of transnational history as it can apply to histories of science and technology see Erik van der Vleuten, "Toward a Transnational History of Technology," Technology and Culture, 2005, 21:1-20.