This paper explores what we can learn from the humanities and social sciences about how standards operate in and around science in order to understand more about how ‘the gold standard’ can be shifted away from the use of animals in research and testing to new approach methodologies (NAMs). These fields allow us to consider potential ...
This paper explores what we can learn from the humanities and social sciences about how standards operate in and around science in order to understand more about how ‘the gold standard’ can be shifted away from the use of animals in research and testing to new approach methodologies (NAMs). These fields allow us to consider potential futures of NAMs as alternatives, replacements, or complements to animal testing and research. As we demonstrate, the questions that we pose and how they are framed are as important as the answers that result. Rather than asking how to ‘redefine the gold standard,’ norms and expectations for NAMs must be actively debated and transparently defined, based in part on what has been learned in the past from non-human animal models and systems, but also using norms within the fields from which the NAMs derive and in light of the rich broader contexts within which they are being developed. As we argue, notions such as ‘a gold standard’ are limited and must be replaced by contextualized standards that depend on the scientific, sociocultural, and other factors that contribute to our understan¬¬ding of a particular method (new or otherwise) as ‘good’ for a particular purpose.
