Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37958130›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Ethical Considerations for Echinoderms: New Initiatives in Welfare.

Augusto César Crespi-Abril, Tamara Rubilar

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Augusto César Crespi-AbrilInstituto Patagónico del Mar (IPaM), Universidad Nacional del a Patagonia San Juan Bosco (UNPSJB), Boulevard Brown 2915, Puerto Madryn 9120, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-6278-2787
Tamara RubilarLaboratorio de Oceanografía Biológica (LOBio), Centro Para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos (CESIMAR-CONICET), Boulevard Brown 2915, Puerto Madryn 9120, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-1728-3273
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · AR

Funding

CONICET PIP 11220210100013CO
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores the ethical considerations surrounding research on echinoderms, a group of invertebrates that has recently garnered attention in the scientific community. The importance of responsible animal handling and the need for an ethical framework that encompasses echinoderms are emphasized. The 3Rs principle, advocating for the replacement of conscious living vertebrates with non-sentient material in research, is discussed as a guiding tool in current animal research practices. As invertebrates are generally classified as non-sentient animals, the replacement dimension tends to favor them as prevalent models in experimental research. While it currently lacks the means to assess the mental states of invertebrates, there is undeniable evidence of social behavior in many species, suggesting that a lack of interactions with these organisms could potentially adversely affect their wellbeing. In the last few years, considerable progress has been made in developing an ethical framework that takes invertebrates into account, particularly cephalopods, crustaceans, and echinoderms. In this context, we discuss the development of a broader conceptual framework of 5Rs that includes responsibility and respect, which may guide practices ensuring welfare in echinoderms, even in the absence of any particular normative.

Indexed as

5Rs principleechinoderm sentienceechinoderm welfareinvertebratesrespectresponsibilityresponsible echinoderm use

Identifiers

PMID37958130
PMCPMC10647474
OpenAlexW4388041451

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.