Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33530613›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

An Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to Evaluate the Application of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Mammals' Conservation: The Case of the Northern White Rhinoceros (

Barbara de Mori, Maria Michela Spiriti, Ilaria Pollastri, Simona Normando, Pierfrancesco Biasetti, Daniela Florio, Francesco Andreucci, Silvia Colleoni, Cesare Galli, Frank Göritz and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. In vitro fertilization program in white rhinoceros.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

21 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Barbara de MoriDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.
Maria Michela SpiritiDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.
Ilaria PollastriDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.
Simona NormandoDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3978-1487
Pierfrancesco BiasettiEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4309-4655
Daniela FlorioEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9949-4423
Francesco AndreucciEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, 35020 Padua, Italy.
Silvia ColleoniAvantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, 26100 Cremona, Italy.
Cesare GalliAvantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, 26100 Cremona, Italy.
Frank GöritzDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany.
Robert HermesDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2487-9171
Susanne HoltzeDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4654-1916
Giovanna LazzariAvantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, 26100 Cremona, Italy.
Steven SeetScience Communication, Science Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany.
Jan ZwillingScience Communication, Science Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany.
Jan StejskalZOO Dvůr Králové, 54401 Dvůr Králové nad Labem, Czech Republic.
Samuel MutisyaOl Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki 10400, Kenya.
David NdeerehKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
Stephen NguluOl Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki 10400, Kenya.
Richard VigneOl Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki 10400, Kenya.
Thomas B HildebrandtDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, D-10315 Berlin, Germany.
University of Padua · ITLeibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research · DEKenya Wildlife Service · KEAvantea · IT

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung BMBF BioRescue: 01LC1902A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) can make a difference in biodiversity conservation. Their application, however, can create risks and raise ethical issues that need addressing. Unfortunately, there is a lack of attention to the topic in the scientific literature and, to our knowledge, there is no tool for the ethical assessment of ARTs in the context of conservation that has been described. This paper reports the first applications of the Ethical Assessment Tool (ETHAS) to trans-rectal ovum pick-up (OPU) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures used in a northern white rhinoceros (

Indexed as

animal welfareassisted reproductive technologiesconservation ethicsethical review processethical risk assessmentethical self-assessmentnorthern white rhinoceros

Identifiers

PMID33530613
PMCPMC7911958
OpenAlexW3121146708

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.