This paper explores how, at the 1875 Royal Commission on Vivisection, the anaesthetised animal was construed as a boundary object around which “cooperation without consensus” (Star, in: Esterbrook (ed) Computer supported cooperative work: cooperation or conflict? Springer, London, 1993) could form, serving the interests of both scientists and animals. Advocates of anaesthesia presented it as benevolently intervening between the scientific agent and animal patient. Such articulations of ‘ethical’ vivisection through anaesthesia were then mandated in the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act, and thus have had significant downstream effects on the regulation of laboratory animals in Britain and beyond. Constructing this ‘consensus’ around the anaesthetised animal, however, required first excluding abolitionists and inhumane scientists, and secondly limiting the interests of experimental animals to the avoidance of pain through anaesthesia and euthanasia, thereby circumventing the issue of their possible interest in future life. This consensus also served to secure the interests of vivisecting scientists and to limit the influence of public opinion in the laboratory to administrative procedure and scheduled inspection. The focus on anaesthesia was connected with discussions of what supporting infrastructures were required to ensure proper ethical procedure was carried out by scientists. In contrast to the much studied polarisation in British society between pro- and antivivisectionists after 1876, we understand the 1875 Commission as a conflict amongst scientists themselves, while also being an intra-class conflict amongst the ruling class (French in Antivivisection and medical science in Victorian society, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975).

本文探讨了如何在1875年的皇家剖腹术委员会上将麻醉过的动物解释为边界对象，围绕该对象“没有共识的合作”（星，Esterbrook编辑）计算机支持的合作工作：合作还是冲突？斯普林格，伦敦，1993）可以形成，服务于科学家和动物的利益。麻醉倡导者表示，它是科学干预者和动物患者之间的友好干预。1876年，《残酷对待动物法》规定了通过麻醉进行“符合伦理”的活体切除的明确规定，因此对英国及其他地区的实验动物的监管产生了重大的下游影响。但是，围绕麻醉动物构建这种“共识”首先需要排除废奴主义者和不人道的科学家，其次，将实验动物的兴趣限制在通过麻醉和安乐死来避免疼痛的方面，从而规避了它们对未来生活可能的兴趣的问题。这种共识还有助于确保有远见的科学家的利益，并将公众舆论对实验室的影响限制在行政程序和定期检查中。对麻醉的关注与讨论有关需要哪些支持基础设施以确保科学家进行适当的伦理程序的讨论。与1876年后亲和抗活体检查术者在英国社会中受到广泛研究的两极分化相反，我们将1875年委员会理解为科学家自身之间的冲突，