Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35591869›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Ethical Analysis of the Application of Assisted Reproduction Technologies in Biodiversity Conservation and the Case of White Rhinoceros (

Pierfrancesco Biasetti, Thomas B Hildebrandt, Frank Göritz, Robert Hermes, Susanne Holtze, Cesare Galli, Giovanna Lazzari, Silvia Colleoni, Ilaria Pollastri, Maria Michela Spiriti and 10 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. How to Ensure a Bright Future for Reproductive Sciences in Animal Conservation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

20 authors.

Pierfrancesco BiasettiDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas B HildebrandtDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Frank GöritzDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Robert HermesDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne HoltzeDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Cesare GalliAvantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, Cremona, Italy.
Giovanna LazzariAvantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, Cremona, Italy.
Silvia ColleoniAvantea, Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies, Cremona, Italy.
Ilaria PollastriEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation, and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Maria Michela SpiritiEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation, and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Jan StejskalZOO Dvůr Králové, Dvůr Králové nad Labem, Czechia.
Steven SeetDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Jan ZwillingDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Stephen NguluOl Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki, Kenya.
Samuel MutisyaOl Pejeta Wildlife Conservancy, Nanyuki, Kenya.
Linus KariukiKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Isaac LokoloolKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Patrick OmondoKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
David NdeerehKenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi, Kenya.
Barbara de MoriEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation, and Animal Welfare, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Originally applied on domestic and lab animals, assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) have also found application in conservation breeding programs, where they can make the genetic management of populations more efficient, and increase the number of individuals per generation. However, their application in wildlife conservation opens up new ethical scenarios that have not yet been fully explored. This study presents a frame for the ethical analysis of the application of ART procedures in conservation based on the Ethical Matrix (EM), and discusses a specific case study-ovum pick-up (OPU) procedures performed in the current conservation efforts for the northern white rhinoceros (

Indexed as

assisted reproduction technologies (ART)biodiversity conservationconservation breeding programsethical analysisEthical Matrixnorthern white rhinocerosovum pick-upwhite rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum)

Identifiers

PMID35591869
PMCPMC9113018

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.