ReviewTransgenic research2010
"What's wrong with my monkey?" Ethical perspectives on germline transgenesis in marmosets.
Review in Transgenic research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical and Welfare Implications of Genetically Altered Non-Human Primates for Biomedical Research.Journal of applied animal ethics research · 2020Article
- From Mice to Monkeys? Beyond Orthodox Approaches to the Ethics of Animal Model Choice.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Ethical and Scientific Pitfalls Concerning Laboratory Research with Non-Human Primates, and Possible Solutions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2018Article
- Review
- Ethics of primate use.Advances in science and research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The birth of the first transgenic primate to have inherited a transgene from its parents opens the possibility to set up transgenic marmoset colonies, as these monkeys are small and relatively easy to keep and breed in research facilities. The prospect of transgenic marmoset models of human disease, readily available in the way that transgenic laboratory mice are currently, prompts excitement in the scientific community; but the idea of monkeys being bred to carry diseases is also contentious. We structure an ethical analysis of the transgenic marmoset case around three questions: whether it is acceptable to use animals as models of human disease; whether it is acceptable to genetically modify animals; and whether these animals' being monkeys makes a difference. The analysis considers the prospect of transgenic marmoset studies coming to replace transgenic mouse studies and lesion studies in marmosets in some areas of research. The mainstream, broadly utilitarian view of animal research suggests that such a transition will not give rise to greater ethical problems than those presently faced. It can be argued that using marmosets rather than mice will not result in more animal suffering, and that the benefits of research will improve with a move to a species more similar in phylogenetic terms to humans. The biological and social proximity of monkeys and humans may also benefit the animals by making it easier for scientists and caretakers to recognize signs of suffering and increasing the human motivation to limit it. The animal welfare and research impacts of the transition to marmoset use will depend very much on the extent to which researchers take these issues seriously and seek to minimize animal harm and optimize human benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.