Introduction The FRAME symposium on Human Alternatives to Animal Studies brought together many of the estab- lished players in the UK animal replacement arena, including biologists, clinicians, and computer mod- ellers. On this occasion, the interdisciplinary mix was further increased by two social scientists — the authors of this paper — from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Genomics Network. The authors’ previous work has charted technical and regulatory developments in stem cell science, in particular, human tissue storage at the UK Stem Cell Bank (1, 2), and translational medicine in heart disease (3; poster presented by JH at the sympo- sium). Given these interests, the FRAME sympo- sium presented a fascinating opportunity to explore issues around regulation, translational medicine, and human tissue storage and distribution in a new setting. The first author’s (JH) work focuses upon the complex interactions and elements that make up cardiac stem cell research and, in particular, how animals are used as models of human health and disease. The second author (NS) has documented the emergence of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) banking in the UK as a scientifically and ethically refined set of practices, and is currently conducting work with onCore UK on cancer biobanking. Aim of the Report Our primary interest is in the in vitro techniques being developed by the Three Rs community, and the challenges these face in becoming recognised as equal to, or better than, animal studies leading to clinical trials. In this short article, we will reflect upon the symposium in relation to our existing research, to articulate a social science commentary upon the issues discussed. However, we should be clear from the start that we are both new to the Three Rs field. Our previous work was based upon several years of fieldwork conducting interviews and observations with people active in the areas of stem cell science which we write about. This is not yet the case in the field of the Three Rs. Both of us have been drawn to the area, because we feel it raises important questions — both technical and social science — about how animal and human tis- sue are regarded in contemporary bioscience regu- lation. While we will raise a number of questions in this comment, we are still far from being able to answer them. The Three Rs Agenda as a Socio-technical Accomplishment From a social science perspective, we would call progress in the Three Rs agenda a ‘socio-technical accomplishment’. We use this terminology to stress the relatedness of the technical (understanding cell culture, programming computer simulations), and the social (network formation, systems of pres- tige and funding) aspects that constrain and facili- tate development in the area. Our previous work has shown that the two do not develop separately — the social always informs the technical, and the technical always informs the social. In this regard, the Three Rs agenda is a fascinating site for exploring social science issues in contemporary bioscience. As we elaborate in the following sec- A Social Science View on the FRAME Symposium: Identities and Networks Jean Harrington 1 and Neil Stephens 2 1 Egenis, University of Exeter, UK; 2 Cesagen, Cardiff University, UK Summary — This paper, written by two social scientists, presents a social science perspective on the issues raised at the FRAME symposium on Human Alternatives to Animal Studies. Drawing upon the authors’ experience of conducting research with stem cell scientists, issues around access to human tissue for in vitro uses are considered. The paper concludes by raising questions pertinent to both interested social scientists and the Three Rs agenda. Key words: biobanking, FRAME, human tissue, networks, Three Rs. Address for correspondence: Neil Stephens, ESRC Cesagen, Cardiff University, 6 Museum Place, Cardiff CF10 3BG, UK. E-mail: StephensN@Cardiff.ac.uk ATLA 38, Supplement 1, 101–104, 2010 101