Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33331099›Full record

ReviewAddiction biology2021

Public perception of laboratory animal testing: Historical, philosophical, and ethical view.

Francesca Petetta, Roberto Ciccocioppo

Open access · bronzeAbstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Addiction biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Evaluating Animal Models for Improved Hemodialysis Vascular Access: A Focus on Arteriovenous Fistula.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  7. Infection and immunity · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Survey Results on the Awareness of Laboratory Animal Welfare among Medical Graduate Students.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. ImprovingF1000Research · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Animal Research in Spain: A Study of Public Perception and Attitudes.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Francesca PetettaSchool of Pharmacy, Pharmacology Unit, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Roberto CiccocioppoSchool of Pharmacy, Pharmacology Unit, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Università di Camerino · IT

Funding

The Nociceptin ORL1 System: Treatment Target for RelapseR01AA014351 · NIAAA · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI Friedbert Weiss · 2004 to 2026
$7.3M
Gene-environment interaction: the brain CRF system in alcohol preferring msP ratsR37AA017447 · NIAAA · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI ROBERTO, MARISA · 2016 to 2025
$3.7M
Gene-environment interaction: the brain CRF system in alcohol preferring msP ratsR01AA017447 · NIAAA · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI ROBERTO, MARISA · 2009 to 2013
$1.8M
NIAAA NIH HHS AA014351NIAAA NIH HHS AA017447NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA014351NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA017447NIAAA NIH HHS R37 AA017447
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of laboratory animals in biomedical research is a matter of intense public debate. Recent statistics indicates that about half of the western population, sensitive to this discussion, would be in favor of animal testing while the other half would oppose it. Here, outlining scientific, historical, ethical, and philosophical aspects, we provide an integrated view explaining the reasons why biomedical research can hardly abandon laboratory animal testing. In this paper, we retrace the historical moments that mark the relationship between humans and other animal species. Then starting from Darwin's position on animal experimentation, we outline the steps that over time allowed the introduction of laws and rules that regulate animals' use in biomedical research. In our analysis, we present the perspectives of various authors, with the aim of delineating a theoretical framework within which to insert the ethical debate on laboratory animals research. Through the analysis of fundamental philosophical concepts and some practical examples, we propose a view according to which laboratory animals experimentation become ethically acceptable as far as it is guided by the goal of improving humans and other animal species (i.e., pets) life. Among the elements analyzed, there is the concept of responsibility that only active moral subjects (humans) have towards themselves and towards passive moral subjects (other animal species). We delineate the principle of cruelty that is useful to understand why research in laboratory animals should not be assimilated to a cruel act. Moreover, we touch upon the concepts of necessity and "good cause" to underline that, if biomedical research would have the possibility to avoid using animals, it would surely do that. To provide an example of the negative consequences occurring from not allowing laboratory animal research, we analyze the recent experience of Covid-19 epidemic. Finally, recalling the principle of "heuristics and biases" by Kahneman, we discuss why scientists should reconsider the way they are conveying information about their research to the general public.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimal RightsAnimal Use AlternativesAttitudeBiomedical ResearchHistory, 17th CenturyHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHistory, AncientHumansPublic Opinion3R principlesanimal experimentationanimal rightsCovid-19moral responsibility

Identifiers

PMID33331099
PMCPMC9252265
OpenAlexW3112123303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.