Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34070489›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Brexit: A Boon or a Curse for Animals Used in Scientific Procedures?

Rachel Dunn

Abstract read
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Considerations for implementing regulation of decapods in science.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024
    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

1 author.

Rachel DunnSchool of Law, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The UK has long been hailed as one of the world leaders in animal welfare. Within the UK, animals used in experiments are provided some protection under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). This Act was impacted by European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU, and subsequently the ASPA was updated to reflect any changes required. While the Directive is very similar to the protection the UK already afforded to animals used in experiments, there were some advances that the Directive provided that were not present in the ASPA. On paper, the changes introduced were promising but may not have been achieved in practice. In 2016, the British public voted to leave the EU, which presented concerns over animal welfare protection and legislation provided by EU law. With the completion of Brexit, there may be an opportunity to diverge from the Directive to advance protection for animals used in experiments. This article explores the influence that the EU has had on animal experimentation in the UK, the potential implications of Brexit on the welfare of animals used in experiments and suggests ways in which this protection can be progressed, with potentially more freedom to amend or introduce legislation to do so.

Indexed as

animal experimentationanimal (scientific procedures) Act 1986animal welfareBrexit

Identifiers

PMID34070489
PMCPMC8227099

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.