ReviewAddiction biology2021
Public perception of laboratory animal testing: Historical, philosophical, and ethical view.
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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3Rs principles for biomedical research in Africa: Evidence, challenges, early career researchers' perspectives, and pathways for One Health research governance.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Beyond the mouse: 3R-guided alternative animal models transforming cancer research.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Preliminary Toxicological Evaluation of Spherical Nanoparticles Containing an Imidazole Derivative (BzIm-DEA) Using the CAM Chicken Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Mapping the ethical and sustainable transition in toxicology: a bibliometric analysis and a review of new approach methodologies.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Analgesics in a Murine Bile Duct Ligation Model.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Evaluating Animal Models for Improved Hemodialysis Vascular Access: A Focus on Arteriovenous Fistula.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Article
- Let's talk about "talking" dogs! Reviewing the science behind a bold idea.Biologia futura · 2025Review
- Engineering a 3D wounded skin equivalent to study early inflammatory and regenerative responsesFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Survey Results on the Awareness of Laboratory Animal Welfare among Medical Graduate Students.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2024Article
- Assessing the effectiveness of cannabidiol additive supplementation on canine behavior and cortisol levels.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Molecular identification and subtyping of Cryptosporidium spp. in laboratory mice and rats.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2024Article
- ImprovingF1000Research · 2024Article
- Public attitudes toward the use of human induced pluripotent stem cells: insights from an Italian adult population.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- A new protocol for multispecies bacterial infections in zebrafish and their monitoring through automated image analysis.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Animal Research in Spain: A Study of Public Perception and Attitudes.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Animal Disease Models and Patient-iPS-Cell-Derived In Vitro Disease Models for Cardiovascular Biology-How Close to Disease?Biology · 2023Review
- Robustness of a multivariate composite score when evaluating distress of animal models for gastrointestinal diseases.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The impact of stress and anesthesia on animal models of infectious disease.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.