A sociological perspective on the challenges of displacing animal research within academia: the contribution of Bourdieu.

The use of non-animal, new approach methodologies (NAMs) is increasing but there has been no associated decrease in animal use. Reasons may include the focus on phasing-in NAMs over phasing-out animal use and the focus on transition within the regulatory sphere, although most animals are used in basic research. The transition to NAMs is often viewed as a technical matter, without acknowledging that scientific knowledge and practices are socially produced and that scientists may be motivated - like all social beings - by interests and power relationships. This paper employs the insights of French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, to explore the persistence of animal research within academia. Several of Bourdieu's concepts are applied, including field and habitus, but perhaps it is his concept of capital that is most valuable in this context, providing a valuable shorthand for discussing the system of rewards and penalties within academia, clarifying how animal research converts into symbolic as well as social and economic capital and elucidating what scientists risk if they attempt to transition from animal research to NAMs. Bourdieu reminds us to attend to power relationships, particularly the relationship between the animal research field and the field of power. Importantly, he argued that scientific change does not occur simply as a result of paradigm shifts, but because of struggles between scientists for capital and for the power to define their science as 'legitimate'. Bourdieu's concepts bring clarity and sensitivity to discussions about the transition as these gather momentum.