| As a practicing laboratory animal veterinarian with several years experience caring for research animals, I have sought to understand the development and impact of animal welfare public policy in the United States. In this work, I examine the genesis of the 1980s update of the Animal Welfare Act as I explore the intersection of ethics, political advocacy and the many ways---scientific, empathetic, experiential---of knowing about animals.; How humans treat animals depends greatly on what we believe matters to them, or causes them pleasures or pains. In the 1980s, animal protectionists, research advocates, veterinarians and others vied to influence the Animal Welfare Act by claiming to speak for animals and to know best what constitutes their welfare. I base my analysis of these claims to expertise in Science Studies' focus on the construction of scientific facts---in this case, the facts about animals' subjective experiences---as a social and political activity.; Animal protectionists brought their conception of "what everyone knows" about animals to policy debates. Scientists and veterinarians sought to exclude these voices through claims to greater expertise. I examine several case studies in which scientific data were submitted to government regulators in support of particular policy proposals, and describe the intricate connection of values and data that undermines their claims of objectivity and their hope for a welfare policy that is science-based and free of bias.; I argue that scientific studies bring important information to discussions of animal welfare public policy, but that they have several limitations as well. I call for an approach to animal welfare policy that better respects and incorporates multiple perspectives---the nonscientist's common-sense knowledge of animals, the veterinarian's clinical focus on individual patients, the animal caregivers' interactive experience of animals, and the scientists' data---than simple calls for "science-based" regulations can provide. |
