ReviewScience and engineering ethics2019
Animal Models in Forensic Science Research: Justified Use or Ethical Exploitation?
Review in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward proportionate ethical review of animal models in forensic research.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Sharp force trauma analysis without animal bones: A proposal for sustainable and ethical bone proxies.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Joint editorial: shared deliberations of the editors-in-chief of three forensic journals regarding ethical issues in forensic publishing.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Quantitative assessment of the repeatability of PermaGel as a ballistic tissue simulant.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Joint editorial: shared deliberations of the editors-in-chief of three forensic journals regarding ethical issues in forensic publishing.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- A Preliminary Study of Pig Carcass Decomposition and Necrophagous Fly Community Dynamics on Hainan Island, China.Insects · 2026Article
- Protein degradation in human skeletal muscle: advancing postmortem interval estimation under natural outdoor conditions.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- The current state of forensic imaging - post mortem imaging.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Zebrafish: A Cost-Effective Model for Enhanced Forensic Toxicology Capabilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Cureus · 2024Review
- A review of experimental design in forensic taphonomy: moving towards forensic realism.Forensic sciences research · 2020Review
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
A moral dilemma exists in biomedical research relating to the use of animal or human tissue when conducting scientific research. In human ethics, researchers need to justify why the use of humans is necessary should suitable models exist. Conversely, in animal ethics, a researcher must justify why research cannot be carried out on suitable alternatives. In the case of medical procedures or therapeutics testing, the use of animal models is often justified. However, in forensic research, the justification may be less evident, particularly when research involves the infliction of trauma on living animals. To determine how the forensic science community is dealing with this dilemma, a review of literature within major forensic science journals was conducted. The frequency and trends of the use of animals in forensic science research was investigated for the period 1 January 2012-31 December 2016. The review revealed 204 original articles utilizing 5050 animals in various forms as analogues for human tissue. The most common specimens utilized were various species of rats (35.3%), pigs (29.3%), mice (17.7%), and rabbits (8.2%) although different specimens were favored in different study themes. The majority of studies (58%) were conducted on post-mortem specimens. It is, however, evident that more needs to be done to uphold the basic ethical principles of reduction, refinement and replacement in the use of animals for research purposes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29717465What 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.