ArticleBMC medical ethics2016
The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. 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, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protecting Human and Animal Health: The Road from Animal Models to New Approach Methods.Pharmacological reviews · 2024Review
- Laparoscopy assisted abomasal cannulation in cadavers of bovine fetuses.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Researchers and Their Experimental Models: A Pilot Survey in the Context of the European Union Health and Life Science Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Percutaneous ruminostomy guided by rumenoscopy: study in an experimental model in bovine fetus.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Multi-Organs-on-Chips for Testing Small-Molecule Drugs: Challenges and Perspectives.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- Advancements in 3D Cell Culture Systems for Personalizing Anti-Cancer Therapies.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Cognitive Dissonance in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Implications for Animal Welfare.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020Article
- Feasibility of fresh frozen human cadavers as a research and training model for endovascular image guided interventions.PloS one · 2020Article
- The Tumor-on-Chip: Recent Advances in the Development of Microfluidic Systems to Recapitulate the Physiology of Solid Tumors.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Assessing undergraduate student and faculty views on animal research: What do they know, whom do they trust, and how much do they care?PloS one · 2019Article
- Justifiability and Animal Research in Health: Can Democratisation Help Resolve Difficulties?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo determine whether the public and scientists consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of animal research (AR) convincing.
methodsAfter validation, the survey was sent to samples of public (Sampling Survey International (SSI; Canadian), Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT; US), a Canadian city festival and children's hospital), medical students (two second-year classes), and scientists (corresponding authors, and academic pediatricians). We presented questions about common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses were compared using Chi-square with Bonferonni correction.
resultsThere were 1220 public [SSI, n = 586; AMT, n = 439; Festival, n = 195; Hospital n = 107], 194/331 (59%) medical student, and 19/319 (6%) scientist [too few to report] responses. Most public respondents were <45 years (65%), had some College/University education (83%), and had never done AR (92%). Most public and medical student respondents considered 'benefits arguments' sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same 'benefits arguments' do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened 'benefits arguments'. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'characteristics of non-human-animals arguments', including that non-human-animals are not sentient, or are property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'human exceptionalism' arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special 'kind', can enter social contracts, or face a 'lifeboat situation'. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities ['argument from species overlap'], and that the notion of 'kind' is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the 'kind' 'sentient-animal' or 'subject-of-a-life'?]. Medical students were more supportive (80%) of AR at the end of the survey (p < 0.05).
conclusionsResponses suggest that support for AR may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted.
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.