Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23576848›Full record

ArticleScience as culture2012

Anticipatory Governance: Bioethical Expertise for Human/Animal Chimeras.

Alison Harvey, Brian Salter

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science as culture, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alison HarveyKing's College London, CBAS, London, UK.
Brian Salter
King's College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 086034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The governance demands generated by the use of human/animal chimeras in scientific research offer both a challenge and an opportunity for the development of new forms of anticipatory governance through the novel application of bioethical expertise. Anticipatory governance can be seen to have three stages of development whereby bioethical experts move from a reactive to a proactive stance at the edge of what is scientifically possible. In the process, the ethicists move upstream in their engagement with the science of human-to-animal chimeras. To what extent is the anticipatory coestablishment of the principles and operational rules of governance at this early stage in the development of the human-to-animal research field likely to result in a framework for bioethical decision making that is in support of science? The process of anticipatory governance is characterised by the entwining of the scientific and the philosophical so that judgements against science are also found to be philosophically unfounded, and conversely, those activities that are permissible are deemed so on both scientific and ethical grounds. Through what is presented as an organic process, the emerging bioethical framework for human-to-animal chimera research becomes a legitimating framework within which 'good' science can safely progress. Science gives bioethical expertise access to new governance territory; bioethical expertise gives science access to political acceptability.

Indexed as

anticipatory governanceBioethical expertisegood sciencehuman/animal chimeras

Identifiers

PMID23576848
PMCPMC3617809
OpenAlexW2032507022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.