Kathleen Salter graduated with a first-class BA Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Nottingham in 2017. Her strong interest in bioethics, medical research policy, and discourse surrounding science-societal communication was consolidated by the completion of a final year undergraduate dissertation titled: 'A consideration of the role of social science in informing the regulatory debate surrounding human genome editing technologies'. This interest was further honed through receiving an MA in Health Care Ethics and Law, with distinction, at the University of Manchester after undertaking the dissertation project: 'A critical analysis of the current UK regulation of 'socially' motivated oocyte cryopreservation'. She has also recently completed a further MA degree in Social Science Research Methods (Sociology), with distinction, on the ESRC DTP '1+3' programme, to prepare for PhD study.
Ensuring the Social Legitimacy of Animal Research: Comparing Public and Policy Expectations
This research project explores the concept of social legitimacy in UK animal research governance. While lay 'publics' opinion of animal research has previously been explored in the social sciences, there is limited empirical work on their expectations for its regulation, and how this compares with policy and practice. The project focuses specifically on localised Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies (AWERBs), that are legally required within all institutions breeding, supplying or using research animals in the UK, as these act as a key locus through which 'ethics' enters the regulatory process. It plans to use a qualitative multi-method approach, incorporating a document analysis of AWERB policy and guidance documents, followed by a series of focus groups with lay 'publics'.
Ultimately, the project aim is to develop strategies to further and improve the role of AWERBs, by better understanding the relationship between 'publics' and laboratory animal science. More specifically, the ways in which these systems of can better incorporate the views of 'non-scientists' in these ethical decision-making processes.