TY - JOUR
AU - Thompson, P. B.
AB - ABSTRACT Many scientists regard the term “postmodernism” as controversial. Because postmodern theorists question whether science can be objective, some scientists view postmodernism as anti-scientific. In this paper, we argue that traditional accounts of science developed during the modern era (16th, 17th, and 18th centuries) are still influential in animal science, but are no longer plausible. In particular, the view that science automatically leads to human betterment seems to be disingenuous. A postmodern view that portrays science as a political activity seems more plausible, and offers a means to better understand contentious policy issues that involve science. Although most animal scientists accept the view that theory selection, experimental designs, and technology development require value-laden judgments, most fail to recognize that such values may be politically motivated and embrace prevailing political structures. Postmodernists such as Michel Foucault argue that through the generation of knowledge, scientific disciplines create a discourse that serves to maintain a particular social structure that has political implications. Viewed in this way, it becomes clear how various interest groups can be critical of certain scientific programs. For example, groups that oppose research dealing with cloning, genetically modified organisms, and intensive livestock production may not be as much opposed to science as they are to the political interests served by this science. In other words, such groups view these research agendas as promoting policies that place them at risk. Such a postmodern account of science, may help animal scientists better understand the nature of contentious issues, and provide a basis for reforming the animal science discipline in ways that make it more responsive to the diverse interests of a pluralistic society. Introduction In a recent article published in The Nation, columnist Win McCormack notes that during the past 20 years, “American conservative intellectuals” have launched an attack on postmodernism (McCormack, 2001). For example, in Telling the Truth, Lynne Cheney asserts that the views of postmodernists such as Michel Foucault are “nothing less than an assault on Western Civilization” (Cheney, 1995). Overall, these critics portray postmodernism as an attempt to undermine traditional values such as truth and objectivity and portray postmodernism as a doctrine of left-leaning academics. Gross and Leavitt (1994) embrace this view and suggest that postmodern perspectives are perpetuated in liberal arts programs and foster anti-science attitudes. Recent protests against cloning, intensive livestock production and genetically modified organisms seem to suggest that there may truly be a growing mistrust of science (Borlaug, 2000). Is postmodernism a political ideology of “tenured radicals” who wish to promote their own political agendas, or is postmodernism a theory that offers new insights into understanding our culturally diverse society? In this paper, we portray postmodernism as a perspective that addresses important shortcomings of traditional, modernistic accounts of science. In addition, we argue that a postmodern perspective offers a means to enhance our understanding of the contentious moral issues that animal scientists encounter and offer suggestions for reforming animal science in ways that embrace postmodern dialectics. What is Postmodernism? For anyone who grew up between 1900 and 1975, the word “modern” meant “new,” “recent,” and “up-to-date,” and of course it is still used that way in many situations. So to hear people speak about “postmodernism,” or to hear that the modern period is over is a little like hearing your children or grandchildren talk about The Beatles as “old school.” In fact historians have long used the terms “modern” and “modernity” to describe a historical period that begins in about 1650, coinciding with the rise of modern science, and that ends in the mid-19th century. We can derive some comfort from the fact that “postmodernism” is then just a term that describes all historical periods after 1850, which makes all of us “postmodernists,” including The Beatles. These terms for historical periods are pretty confusing, however. “Modern art,” is generally thought to begin around 1880, and “modern architecture” refers to the “form follows function” school of thought that began in the 1930's, gave us rectangular glass boxes for urban skylines in the 1960's and, according to geographer David Harvey (1989), became passé in 1972. However we define the dates for modernity, the term “postmodern” only comes to be widely used after Harvey's endpoint of 1972. What it conveys is that the driving ideas behind modernity have played out, that we have come to recognize that they have played out, and that something new or at least different has or should take their place. Thus, if postmodernism has any relevance for animal science, it is likely to be in the way that some driving idea characteristic of modernism has played out and in our recognition that it is time to look for something different. As noted already, modernism is associated with the rise of science. Some key ideas associated with the rise of science that no longer seem plausible or true have been and to some extent still are, we contend, influential in animal science departments. In our view, the belief that science would automatically lead to human betterment best characterizes modernism. It is exactly this view that is expressed by the founders of modern thought. For example, as noted by Merchant (1989), in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis a scientist is portrayed as a priest who “had the power of absolving all human misery through science.” It is this view that is challenged by postmodern thought. It is important to make clear that postmodernism is not committed to the claim that science does not or can not lead to improvement of the human condition. There are a few people who believe that, but they would be better characterized as “anti-modernists” than as postmodernists. For us, what is false about modernism centers on the automatic or inexorable connection between science and human betterment. We still hear echoes of simple-minded modernism from people who tell us that pollution, industrial accidents, destruction of communities or natural areas, maldistributions of wealth and poverty that follow industrialization are “just progress.” Perhaps more common is a slightly more sophisticated modernism that views such affronts as “costs” that are offset by the many obvious beneficial changes that have been brought about by developments in science and technology. In fact, a cost-benefit analysis of technology has been advocated by several animal scientists (Schillo, 1999). It seems fair to suggest that many animal scientists recognize the positive and negative aspects of science and technology and therefore have taken the first step toward postmodernism. Although many animals scientists might understand that science can have both beneficial and harmful effects, it appears reasonable to assume that most animal scientists lack a sophisticated understanding of how this can be the case. We view such insight as pivotal in helping animal scientists cope with and address the numerous contentious issues arising in livestock production. With this in mind, we discuss how postmodernism can illuminate how science can both help and harm people and demonstrate how postmodern ideas might help us cope with contentious issues in animal science. The Political Nature of Animal Science Michel Foucault is one of several French philosophers whose ideas contributed greatly to postmodern perspectives (Rabinow, 1984). His views concerning knowledge, power and the state seem particularly useful for understanding the political dimensions of animal science. Foucault's ideas were developed from historical analyses of events that occurred during the transition from the medieval to the modern era. Foucault noted that one of the changes that characterized the modern state is its focus on preservation of the state through the growth and care of its populace (Rabinow, 1984). In order to do this, various state-sponsored institutions develop to support social/political structures that perpetuate the interests of the state. From these structures arise various scientific disciplines that generate knowledge that reinforces these structures. Therefore, power and knowledge are inseparable and there is no certainty or understanding that is external to history and society. Foucault portrays political struggle as battles between competing worldviews that emphasize different power relationships. One of the most important features of Foucault's analysis is the “objectification” of individual subjects in society (Rabinow, 1984). In other words, how individuals are defined and categorized in ways that serve the state; how individuals become the objects of state concern. Objectification occurs in three ways. First, humans are objectified by “dividing practices;” Procedures that assign social identities to individuals (insane, poor, senile, homosexual, laborer, farmer, etc.). Second, “scientific classification” of individuals serves as the basis for various disciplines that study and gather knowledge about the population. For example, objectification of those who farm serves as the basis for agricultural sciences, whereas objectification of those who eat gives rise to the disciplines of food science and nutrition. Third, “subjectification” involves the process by which individuals define themselves in society. Although this is understood to be a process of self-formation, involving “operations” on our own “bodies, thoughts and conduct,” it is not immune from influence by the prevailing social norms and expectations. Objectification of individuals serves as the foundation for systems of knowledge that provide data or statistics that reinforce existing social structures (Rabinow, 1984). The disciplines that generate this knowledge require various institutional technologies to support their work; e.g., schools, prisons, laboratories, etc. Such technologies support knowledge development, as well as a process called “normalization.” Normalization involves categorizing humans in finely graded and measurable intervals around a norm. Those individuals who fall too far away from the norm are classified as “anomalies” of the social body and are isolated and normalized through various normalizing and/or corrective technologies. Examples of normalizing technologies include prisons, hospitals for the mentally ill, and schools. Foucault's analysis seems applicable to the discipline of animal science. Dividing practices support the organization of people into classes that produce, process, market and consume animal products. The animal sciences developed from this organization and a variety of institutional technologies now exist to sustain it (e.g., colleges of agriculture, government agencies, agribusiness). The knowledge produced by animal scientists is heavily influenced by, if not solely based on, this structure and the particular historical events that shaped it. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the details of how the discipline of animal science evolved, or to describe and critically analyze the particular power relationships it supports. Our goal here is to illuminate the political dimensions of scientific disciplines in order to refute the modern notion that science automatically benefits all humans. Foucault's realization that science arises from and reinforces a particular social structure characterized by particular power relationships illuminates how science can benefit some groups and harm others. In light of Foucault's analysis, it seems appropriate for animal scientists to ask: Whose world view does their work support? What power relationships does their knowledge perpetuate? Who benefits and who suffers in these relationships? Animal Science and a Changing Political Landscape The traditional goal of animal science has been to develop technologies to address the technical problems of livestock production. In spite of geographic variations in agricultural conditions throughout the United States, the animal science discipline has been enormously successful in addressing many of the major problems facing livestock producers. When the animal science discipline was established during the early part of the 20th century, the majority (65%) of people living in rural areas farmed, and the lives of those who did not farm were directly influenced by agriculture (Hart, 1995). Under these conditions, technologies that improved production practices were viewed as beneficial and were therefore well received and adopted with little resistance. Today, only 6.3% of the rural population live on farms (1.6% of the total population). Although the nation is still dependent on the goods and services produced in rural areas, these areas are no longer viewed strictly as agricultural regions. Today, rural areas are considered to be areas for preservation, recreation and development as well as for farming. Therefore, rural and nonrural people have vested interests in how rural areas are managed. In this sense, rural America can be viewed as an “essential component of urban society” (Castle, 1995). Demographic changes in rural regions pose difficult challenges to the animal science profession. The fact that there are so few farmers may mean the traditional emphasis on the technical problems encountered by full-time livestock producers may not seem relevant to the majority of citizens. Moreover continued investment in development of technologies designed to enhance efficiency of livestock production may have little direct impact on the quality of life in rural communities. It may be that rural people, including farmers, require more help dealing with complex social, political, legal and economic problems than with technical aspects of livestock production. In addition, the existence of an urban middle class that has income to spend on enjoying the “natural amenities” of rural areas adds another dimension to issues faced by rural communities (Castle, 1995). The growing interest in preserving natural environments for recreation creates tension with those who use these regions for traditional agricultural practices. The political upshot of all these changes is that the animal sciences may be out of step with existing social structure and its accompanying issues. Such a view may be the basis for recent discussions concerning the future relevance of Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture (Kunkel, 2000). Animal science faculties are generally aware of changing political environment in society. This change is reflected in their student bodies and in the university environments. Students are increasingly likely to be skeptical about traditional attitudes toward animals and agriculture alike, with many animal science departments experiencing an increase in majors who espouse vegetarian ideals and aspire to become animal protectionists and small animal veterinarians (Cheeke, 1999). Within the larger university, there has been a growing trend to stress racial and gender equality and representation in classrooms, often coupled with criticisms of the sciences as reflecting male-dominated values. Gross and Levitt (1994) argued that these trends reflect a growing liberalism especially within liberal arts department, and argue that the anti-science attitudes associated with these value perspectives. Thompson (2001) documents several authors who interpret contentious issues in animal agriculture as symptoms of a growing rift between left and right. As Gross and Levitt (1994) interpret the situation, those holding liberal views are likely to be more skeptical about science and about its ability to deliver social benefits. They are more likely to disbelieve scientific evidence, and more likely to substitute emotion and value judgments for scientific evidence. However, a recent empirical study by Trachtman and Perruci (2000) finds no support for Gross and Levitt's view. Trachtman and Perucci studied a number of groups across the political spectrum, including environmentalists, feminists, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists. In each case, these groups tended to distrust scientific findings that ran contrary to specific political interests. Thus, environmentalists distrusted science that failed to support stronger environmental protection, while fundamentalists distrusted science that failed to support the teaching of creation doctrines. However, all groups expressed continued confidence in science in areas other than their specific political interest. The Trachtman and Perruci finding supports a general analysis offered by Ulrich Beck (1992,1997). Beck (1992, 1997) argues that the political upshot of skepticism about science will not be anti-science, but what he calls “risk politics,” the organization of political activism around fairly specific issues rather than the class interests or political ideologies of the past. This suggests that we are entering a truly postmodern era, rather than merely an extension of left/right, cold-war political orientations. If so it is inappropriate to interpret changing student attitudes, university politics or any other sector of society as evidence of either growing liberalism or deeply rooted anti-science attitudes. It is certainly true that attitudes are changing, but what is happening is a decline in the influence of sweeping generalizations of all kinds—both left and right, both modernist and anti-modernist—in framing opinions and attitudes. One implication of this change in attitude is that unless animal scientists align their perspectives with those of a postmodern era, animal science may find it increasingly difficult to understand, let alone accommodate, the interests of a pluralistic society. Cheeke (1999) suggests that this already may be the case and argues that one of the causes of shrinking membership in the American Society of Animal Science is that the interests of this profession may be too narrow to be considered relevant in greater society. Postmodern Reform of Animal Science The types of demographic changes cited above have helped create a political landscape where diverse interest groups call on scientists to become more responsive to a variety of contentious issues. There is little doubt that such conditions place scientists in an uncomfortable position. For the most part, animal scientists appear to be stubbornly reluctant to engage in debate regarding a variety of contentious issues related to animal agriculture (Cheeke, 1999). Growing tension between scientists and groups who question the authority of science may be attributed to a disparity between the perspectives of science held by scientists and those held these other groups. For example, animal scientists may view their work in terms of benefiting human beings, whereas other groups may view research in this field as pandering to the interests of dominant groups (Cheeke, 1999). As Foucault's analysis suggests, these conflicts between scientists and critics of science amount to a battle of ideas about how the world should be organized, and what power relationships should exist. Reforming animal science to bridge this ideological gap will create its own amount of discomfort for animal scientists. Nevertheless, there appear to be several good reasons for doing so. Cheeke (1999) offers a very practical reason; the fate of the animal science discipline may hinge on whether or not it can broaden its perspective of animal agriculture and engage in discussions regarding how the concerns of a diverse populace can be addressed. Schillo (1998) offers ethical and epistemological reasons for incorporating more diverse views into the animal science discipline. First, disciplines that ignore the perspectives of certain groups contribute to the perpetuation of attitudes, technologies and/or policies that subject such groups to various risks. There is little doubt that animal science research has contributed greatly to improving the lives of rural and nonrural people. However, there is also little doubt that their work has contributed to the changing structure of society (e.g., urbanization), and that people have suffered as a result of these changes. Second, excluding diverse perspectives may lead to incomplete understandings of complex research problems. Animal science research will become much more complicated as animal agriculture becomes more globalized. Variations in cultural and physical geography will make it extremely difficult to develop research programs that are universally applicable. If animal scientists are to develop globally relevant research programs they will have to collaborate with those who have understanding of the wide variety of contexts in which animal agriculture is practiced. How should animal science be reformed? To answer this question, we focus on broad structural changes that are intended to involve animal scientists in open critical analysis of various policy issues affecting animal agriculture. We suggest two areas on which to focus: 1) reconstructing animal scientists' perspectives regarding science praxis and 2) developing an ethic that is consistent with this view. The view that science is inexorably linked with human betterment appears to have been thoroughly refuted by various scholars. Moreover, the willingness of interest groups to question scientific research programs suggests that a significant portion of the public reject the idea that all science results in improvement of the human condition. In support of this latter claim, Bauer (1994) argues that although the public is generally unfamiliar with particular scientific facts and concepts, it has a good understanding of how social and political interests determine which research programs are pursued. Although extensive work has demonstrated that modern accounts of science are no longer plausible, there has been little discussion regarding how science should be framed in a postmodern era. Ihde (1998) recently addressed this question by suggesting that the field of hermeneutics (i.e., interpretive activity) offers useful postmodern insights into the practice of science. Ihde notes that during the past 500 years science has become “techno-science”—science that is dependent on the use of technology to procure data. Today, scientists rarely rely on direct observations of their subject matter. Scientific experiments typically involve a variety of instruments and techniques to produce visual images of the things under study. These images, like the texts of ancient documents, require translation and interpretation. Ihde portrays this practice as a “perceptualistic hermeneutics” A vision-based system for interpreting the phenomena of nature. Framing science as having a strong hermeneutic component addresses postmodern criticisms of modernistic accounts of science. Specifically, viewing science as hermeneutic is compatible with the view that science can be political. The phenomena scientists choose to study, the technologies they employ to study these phenomena and how the images produced by these technologies are interpreted are influenced by their experiences in the life world. In other words, scientific knowledge is embodied knowledge; the observer (the scientist) and the observed are inseparable. What scientists see and how they interpret what they see is a function of previous life experiences and these visions and interpretations, in turn, determine which images scientists will pursue in subsequent experiments as well as how new images will be interpreted. The life experiences of scientists are affected by such things as: race, gender, class, personal interests, social interactions with colleagues, structure of institutions in which they work, regulations governing research activities, social norms, public policies, and funding opportunities. Each of these factors plays a role in Foucault's objectification, and shape the manner in which a scientist functions in society. Because of normalization, there is pressure on scientists to restrict their activities to those that are most consistent with power relationships that support their work. Ihde's analysis offers some useful insights into the various contentious issues surrounding animal science. As noted earlier, recent protests against various scientific enterprises, represent complaints about what science is focusing on more so than a rejection of science as a system of knowledge. According to Ihde's perspective, such protests can be understood as complaints about how the technologies of science are employed as well as the interpretation of the images produced by such technologies. It seems that scientists have become the subjects of criticism, not because they practice science, but because their perspectives and research programs are too narrowly focused to suit the broader interests of a pluralistic society. Recent disagreements concerning the use of bST in dairy cattle may be understood in this way. Whereas the scientists who developed this product may view application of this technology as a means to enhance profitability of milk production, others, with vastly different life experiences and perspectives, may view use of the product as perpetuating the demise of small farms, rural communities and dairy products. The disagreement over the use of bST in dairy cattle has less to do with whether or not the hormone increased milk production than with the political implications of its use. Assessment of technology has traditionally focused on whether it works, or whether it is safe. A postmodern world may require that we also assess the political implications of technology. Viewing animal science as an interpretive activity opens the door for reforming animal science in a postmodern framework. As indicated above, risk appears the dominant concern underlying recent protests concerning various policies and practices in animal agriculture. Resolutions of such issues require value judgments, and such judgments require not only scientific data, but also contextual information that frames risk in terms of the interests of those who could be affected by the technology (Thompson, 1999). Scientists do not usually consider this type of knowledge when they interpret results of experiments or when they develop or assess technology. Ihde's hermeneutic framing of science is compatible with enhancing interactions between scientists and those who deal with other types of knowledge that may be required to make informed judgments about the risks of technologies. Portraying science as a deeply interpretive activity places science on a level similar to other intellectual activities, and serves to erode the science/nonscience dichotomy that tends to isolate the scientific community from other academic disciplines as well as nonacademic groups. Such interactions can encourage a collective understanding of issues and help scientists avoid the types of criticisms levied against research on bST. Although framing animal science in a postmodern way may provide some incentive for changing the discipline, this alone will not lead to its transformation. In order to effect change, the animal science community should enact programs designed to change the way it operates. The incentive for developing such programs is a professional ethic that reflects the current political landscape (Thompson, 1999). The specific codes of conduct comprising such an ethic should evolve from a collective understanding that consists of more than just the views of animal scientists, livestock producers and livestock industry representatives. To begin this process, Thompson (1999) suggests that the animal science profession should initiate efforts that encourage various groups to engage in the process of deconstruction; A process whereby a community analyzes an existing perspective for the purpose of illuminating the implications of this perspective to the community. This can be accomplished by inviting the public to engage in discussion and debate with the goal of developing a collective understanding of animal agriculture. From such an understanding, a new perspective of animal agriculture can be reconstructed, and the animal science community can develop codes of conduct that are compatible with this view. Conclusions John Irving's novel, The Cider House Rules, is a study of conflict between ideals and real life. The setting of the book is rural Maine during the era of World War II, a time and place characterized by stark distinctions of class, race, and gender. The main character, Homer Wells, an orphan who is befriended by a wealthy family that owns an apple orchard, inherits the job of overseeing Black, migrant laborers who pick apples and process them for cider. One of his jobs is to post a list of rules intended to protect the workers from injury and to protect property and equipment. After 15 years of service to the family Homer is dismayed by the fact that none of the workers seems to acknowledge the rules. However, each year the work gets done efficiently without problems other than some minor damage to the roof of the cider house; the workers like to sit on the roof at night and drink, actions that constitute a violation of the rules. Once during his years of service, Homer asks the foreman of the migrants, Mr. Rose, why no one seems to pay attention to the rules. Mr. Rose responds that they (African Americans) have their own rules—rules about surviving—rules that apply to their lives and their interests, not the rules of the wealthy, white farm owners. To the migrants, the rules posted in the cider house seem petty, inconsequential, and irrelevant. In Irving's novel, the cider house rules can be viewed as a metaphor depicting the interrelationships between knowledge and power depicted by Foucault. The rules governing behavior in the cider house are based solely on the interests of the farm owners. The migrants are the objects of the farm owners' concern, but only insofar as the migrants provide labor to sustain the farm. The migrants understand this better than the farm owners. They ignore the cider house rules because their understanding of the world is based on an entirely different perspective, and the rules of the cider house simply do not apply in their world. The relationship between the farm owners and the farm laborers is analogous to the relationship between animal scientists and a growing segment of society. While animal scientists pursue work that promotes a particular structure of animal agriculture governed by a particular set of rules, others view this structure as irrelevant or even harmful. Unless, animal scientists engage in discussions of various controversial issues and adopt policies and practices that promote greater participation in resolution of these issues, there is a good chance that the voices of animal scientists, like the cider house rules, will be ignored. Implications Postmodernism has been viewed as an anti-science ideology by many scientists. A more useful and appropriate interpretation is that postmodernism questions the assumption that scientific research and technology are justified when they produce more benefits than harms. Postmodern analyses of science have illuminated the political nature of science and explain how science can harm particular groups in morally significant ways. Such insight provides the means to both understand and address contentious policy issues associated with animal agriculture. Literature Cited Bauer, H. J. 1994. Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method.  University of Illinois, Urbana and Chicago. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.  M. Ritter, trans. Sage Publications, London. Beck, U. 1997. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order.  M. Ritter, trans. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Borlaug, N. E. 2000. Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of anti-science zealotry. Plant Phys.  123: 487– 490. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Castle, E. N. 1995. Overview. The Changing American Countryside: Rural People and Places.  E. N. Castle ed. University Press of Kansas. Cheeke, P.R. 1999. Shrinking membership in the American Society of Animal Science: does the discipline of poultry science give us some clues? J. Anim. Sci.  77: 2031– 2038. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Cheney, L. V. 1995. Telling the Truth.  Simon and Schuster, New York. Gross, P. R., and N. Levitt 1994. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science.  Johns Hopkins U. Press, Baltimore. Hart, J. F. 1995. “Rural” and “farm” no longer mean the same. The Changing American Countryside: Rural People and Places.  E. N. Castle ed. University Press of Kansas. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change.  Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Ihde, D. 1998. Exapanding Hermeutics: Visualism in Science.  Northwestern U. Press, Evanston, IL. Irving, J. 1999. The Cider House Rules.  Random House, Inc., New York. Kunkel, H. O. 2000. Human Issues in Animal Agriculture.  Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX. Kunkel, H. O., and G. R. Hagevoort 1994. Construction of science for animal agriculture. J. Anim. Sci.  72: 247– 253. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Merchant, C. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution.  Harper San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. McCormick, W. 2001. Deconstructing the election: Foucault, Derrida and GOP strategy.  The Nation, March 26. Rabinow, P. 1984. The Foucault Reader.  Pantheon Books, New York. Schillo, K.K. 1998. Toward a pluralistic animal science: postliberal feminist perspectives. J. Anim. Sci.  76: 2763– 2770. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Schillo, K.K. 1999. An appropriate role for ethics in teaching contemporary issues. J. Anim. Sci.  77: 154– 162. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Thompson, P.B. 1999. From a philosopher's perspective, how should animal scientists meet the challenges of contentious issues? J. Anim. Sci.  77: 372– 377. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  Thompson, P. B. 2001. Animal welfare and livestock production in a postindustrial milieu. J. Appl. Anim. Wel. Sci.  4: 191– 205. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Trachtman, L. E. and R. Perrucci 2000. Science Under Seige: Interest Groups and the Science Wars.  Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield. Footnotes 1 This paper was presented at a symposium titled “Bioethics in Animal Science” during the 2001 joint meeting of the American Dairy Science Association, American Meat Science Association, American Society of Animal Science and Poultry Science Association. The symposium was developed by WCC 204 Regional Committee on animal Bioethics and was sponsored by Elanco Animal Health. Published with the approval of the Director of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station as publication number 02-07-176. Copyright 2003 Journal of Animal Science
TI - Postmodernism for animal scientists
JO - Journal of Animal Science
DO - 10.2527/2003.81122989x
DA - 2003-12-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/postmodernism-for-animal-scientists-coAdU0sMbP
SP - 2989
EP - 2994
VL - 81
IS - 12
DP - DeepDyve
ER -