Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27428071›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare.

Gail F Davies, Beth J Greenhough, Pru Hobson-West, Robert G W Kirk, Ken Applebee, Laura C Bellingan, Manuel Berdoy, Henry Buller, Helen J Cassaday, Keith Davies and 32 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Model Organisms Unbound.Journal of the history of biology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multiphoton intravital microscopy of rodents.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Animals, veterinarians and the sociology of diagnosis.Sociology of health & illness · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

42 authors.

Gail F DaviesDepartment of Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Beth J GreenhoughSchool of Geography and the Environment and Keble College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Pru Hobson-WestCentre for Applied Bioethics, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Robert G W KirkCentre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine (CHSTM), Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Ken ApplebeeBiological Services, Health Schools, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Laura C BellinganSociety of Biology, Charles Darwin House, London, United Kingdom.
Manuel BerdoyBiomedical Services, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Henry BullerDepartment of Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Helen J CassadaySchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Keith DaviesJoint Biological Services, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Daniela DiefenbacherSociety of Biology, Charles Darwin House, London, United Kingdom.
Tone DruglitrøTIK - Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Maria Paula EscobarDepartment of Geography, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Carrie FrieseDepartment of Sociology, London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Kathrin HerrmannInstitute of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Amy HinterbergerDepartment of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Wendy J JarrettUnderstanding Animal Research, London, United Kingdom.
Kimberley JayneCentre for Research in Animal Behaviour, Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Adam M JohnsonBiological Services Facility (BSF), Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth R JohnsonDepartment of Environmental Studies, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York, United States of America.
Timm KonoldAnimal Sciences Unit, Animal and Plant Health Agency Weybridge, Addlestone, United Kingdom.
Matthew C LeachSchool of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Sabina LeonelliExeter Centre for the Study of the Life Sciences (Egenis) & Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
David I LewisSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Elliot J LilleyResearch Animals Department, Science Group, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, West Sussex, United Kingdom.
Emma R LongridgeBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Swindon, United Kingdom.
Carmen M McLeodFaculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Mara MieleSchool of Planning and Geography, College of Art, Humanities and Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Nicole C NelsonDepartment of the History of Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Elisabeth H OrmandyUBC Animal Welfare Program, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Helen PallettSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Lonneke PoortFaculteit of Law, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pandora PoundSchool for Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Edmund RamsdenSchool of History, Queen Mary, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Emma RoeDepartment of Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Helen ScalwayHonorary Research Associate, Geography Department, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Astrid SchraderDepartment of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Chris J ScottonInstitute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Cheryl L ScudamoreMary Lyon Centre, MRC Harwell, Harwell, United Kingdom.
Jane A SmithFaculty of Science, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
Lucy WhitfieldNamed Veterinary Surgeons Group, Royal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah WolfensohnSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901338Medical Research Council MC_UP_1502/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareAnimalsCooperative BehaviorHumanitiesHumansInterdisciplinary StudiesLaboratory Animal ScienceSocial Sciences

Identifiers

PMID27428071
PMCPMC4948886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.