Interactions between conservation and the social sciences are frequently characterized by either critique (of conservation by social scientists) or co‐optation (of social scientific methods and insights by conservationists). This article seeks to push beyond these two dominant positions by exploring how conservationists and social scientists can engage in mutually transformative dialogue. Jointly authored by conservation scientists and social scientists, it uses the global nexus of orangutan conservation as a lens onto current challenges and possibilities facing the conservation–social science relationship. We begin with a cross‐disciplinary overview of recent developments in orangutan conservation—particularly those concerned with its social, political and other human dimensions. The article then undertakes a synthetic analysis of key challenges in orangutan conservation—working across difference, juggling scales and contexts and dealing with politics and political economy—and links them to analogous concerns in the conservation–social science relationship. Finally, we identify some ways by which orangutan conservation specifically, and the conservation–social science relationship more generally, can move forward: through careful use of proxies as bridging devices, through the creation of new, shared spaces, and through a willingness to destabilize and overhaul status quos. This demands an open‐ended, unavoidably political commitment to critical reflexivity and self‐transformation on the part of both conservationists and social scientists. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Animals used in biological research and testing have become integrated into the trajectories of modern biomedicine, generating increased expectations for and connections between human and animal health. Animal research also remains controversial and its acceptability is contingent on a complex network of relations and assurances across science and society, which are both formally constituted through law and informal or assumed. In this paper, we propose these entanglements can be studied through an approach that understands animal research as a nexus spanning the domains of science, health and animal welfare. We introduce this argument through, first, outlining some key challenges in UK debates around animal research, and second, reviewing the way nexus concepts have been used to connect issues in environmental research. Third, we explore how existing social sciences and humanities scholarship on animal research tends to focus on different aspects of the connections between scientific research, human health and animal welfare, which we suggest can be combined in a nexus approach. In the fourth section, we introduce our collaborative research on the animal research nexus, indicating how this approach can be used to study the history, governance and changing sensibilities around UK laboratory animal research. We suggest the attention to complex connections in nexus approaches can be enriched through conversations with the social sciences and medical humanities in ways that deepen appreciation of the importance of path-dependency and contingency, inclusion and exclusion in governance and the affective dimension to research. In conclusion, we reflect on the value of nexus thinking for developing research that is interdisciplinary, interactive and reflexive in understanding how accounts of the histories and current relations of animal research have significant implications for how scientific practices, policy debates and broad social contracts around animal research are being remade today.

Drawing on ethnographic, ethological, and historical data, we examined the relationships between orangutans and caregivers at Auckland Zoo. Caregivers displayed high levels of empathy and adjusted their husbandry routines to their interpretations of the orangutans’ moods. Caregivers experienced conflicts arising from their efforts to empathize. Although they agreed their husbandry approach improved welfare, they worried their interpretations of orangutan behavior were inaccurate anthropomorphic projections. However, caregivers’ interpretations aligned well with ethological observations and with current knowledge of orangutan behavior. Caregivers’ shared view of great apes as moral persons led to personal conflicts about the ethics of sacrificing individual orangutans’ freedom for the greater good of the species. By exploring caregivers’ personal conflicts, we aimed to inform debates about the politics of empathizing with animals, the role of zoos, and the ethics of keeping great apes in captivity. We argue the use of empathy is essential for engaging in intersubjective relationships.

Ethical Debates in Orangutan Conservation explores how conservationists decide whether, and how, to undertake rehabilitation and reintroduction (R&R) when rescuing orphaned orangutans. The author demonstrates that exploring ethical dilemmas is crucial for understanding ongoing disagreements about how to help endangered wildlife in an era of anthropogenic extinction. Although R&R might appear an uncontroversial activity, there is considerable debate about how, and why, it ought to be practised. Drawing on in-depth qualitative research with orangutan conservation practitioners, this book examines how ethical trade-offs shape debates about R&R. For example, what if the orphan fails to learn how to be an orangutan again, after years in the company of humans? What if she is sent into the forest only to slowly starve? Would she have been better off in a cage? Could the huge cost of sending a rescued ape back to the wild be better spent on stopping deforestation in the first place? Or do we have a moral obligation to rescue the orphan regardless of cost? This book demonstrates that deconstructing ethical positions is crucial for understanding ongoing disagreements about how to help our endangered great ape kin and other wildlife. Ethical Debates in Orangutan Conservation is essential reading for those interested in conservation and animal welfare, animal studies, primatology, geography, environmental philosophy, and anthropology.