ArticleEvolutionary applications2014
The ethical dimensions of wildlife disease management in an evolutionary context.
Article in Evolutionary applications, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discovery of host genetic factors through multi-locus GWAS against toxoplasmosis in sheep: addressing one health perspectives.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Seroprevalence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Settle Down! Ranging Behaviour Responses of Roe Deer to Different Capture and Release Methods.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- The One Health Approach to Toxoplasmosis: Epidemiology, Control, and Prevention Strategies.EcoHealth · 2019Review
- Serological and Molecular Investigation onPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- No evidence of handling-induced mortality in Serengeti's African wild dog population.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- The Dividing Line Between Wildlife Research and Management-Implications for Animal Welfare.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2019Review
- Wildlife parasites in a One Health world.Trends in parasitology · 2015Review
- Evolutionary perspectives on wildlife disease: concepts and applications.Evolutionary applications · 2014Article
- Applying evolutionary concepts to wildlife disease ecology and management.Evolutionary applications · 2014Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Best practices in wildlife disease management require robust evolutionary ecological research (EER). This means not only basing management decisions on evolutionarily sound reasoning, but also conducting management in a way that actively contributes to the on-going development of that research. Because good management requires good science, and good science is 'good' science (i.e., effective science is often science conducted ethically), good management therefore also requires practices that accord with sound ethical reasoning. To that end, we propose a two-part framework to assist decision makers to identify ethical pitfalls of wildlife disease management. The first part consists of six values - freedom, fairness, well-being, replacement, reduction, and refinement; these values, developed for the ethical evaluation of EER practices, are also well suited for evaluating the ethics of wildlife disease management. The second part consists of a decision tree to help identify the ethically salient dimensions of wildlife disease management and to guide managers toward ethically responsible practices in complex situations. While ethical reasoning cannot be used to deduce from first principles what practices should be undertaken in every given set of circumstances, it can establish parameters that bound what sorts of practices will be acceptable or unacceptable in certain types of scenarios.
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.