Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38612244›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

The Long Road from Religious and Ethical Traditions to Welfare of Invertebrates.

Jennifer A Mather

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer A MatherDepartment of Psychology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7009-1639
University of Lethbridge · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethical behaviour tends to lead to the welfare consideration of animals, but much less so for invertebrates. Indigenous tradition often valued all animals as having an important role in life on the planet, a practical application of modern ecology. The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition postulated 'man' as having dominion over all of Earth, resulting in anthropocentrism and careless practices. In contrast, the Buddhist/Hindu belief in rebirth leads to ahisma, or doing no harm. In the face of capitalist systems, practice does not necessarily follow these beliefs, especially in the 'shepherding' of domestic animals. Only Jainist beliefs value the lives of all invertebrates. Philosophers are often divorced from the physiological reality of the animals they muse about, and science's traditions of objectivity and the simplest possible explanation of behaviour led to ignorance of invertebrates' abilities. Ninety-seven percent of animals on the planet are invertebrates. We have a long way to go to provide moral standing and welfare consideration, which is consistent with the new information about the sentience of some of these animals.

Indexed as

ethicsinvertebratesmoral standingreligious valuessentiencewelfare

Identifiers

PMID38612244
PMCPMC11010806
OpenAlexW4393202288

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.