Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38725867›Full record

ReviewRSC sustainability2024

The relevance of sustainable laboratory practices.

Thomas Freese, Nils Elzinga, Matthias Heinemann, Michael M Lerch, Ben L Feringa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in RSC sustainability, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reimagining pharmacology education.Pharmacological reviews · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Policy options on a sustainable path for clinical trials.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Thomas FreeseStratingh Institute for Chemistry, University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 9747 AG Groningen The Netherlands m.m.lerch@rug.nl b.l.feringa@rug.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7792-3415
Nils ElzingaGreen Office, University of Groningen Broerstraat 5 9712 CP Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9065-9462
Matthias HeinemannGroningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 9747 AG Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5512-9077
Michael M LerchStratingh Institute for Chemistry, University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 9747 AG Groningen The Netherlands m.m.lerch@rug.nl b.l.feringa@rug.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0301
Ben L FeringaStratingh Institute for Chemistry, University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4 9747 AG Groningen The Netherlands m.m.lerch@rug.nl b.l.feringa@rug.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0588-8435

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientists are of key importance to the society to advocate awareness of the climate crisis and its underlying scientific evidence and provide solutions for a sustainable future. As much as scientific research has led to great achievements and benefits, traditional laboratory practices come with unintended environmental consequences. Scientists, while providing solutions to climate problems and educating the young innovators of the future, are also part of the problem: excessive energy consumption, (hazardous) waste generation, and resource depletion. Through their own research operations, science, research and laboratories have a significant carbon footprint and contribute to the climate crisis. Climate change requires a rapid response across all sectors of society, modeled by inspiring leaders. A broader scientific community that takes concrete actions would serve as an important step in convincing the general public of similar actions. Over the past years, grassroots movements across the sciences have recognized the overlooked impact of the scientific enterprise, and so-called Green Lab initiatives emerged seeking to address the environmental footprint of research. Driven by the voluntary efforts of researchers and staff, they educate peers, develop sustainability guidelines, write scientific publications and maintain accreditation frameworks. With this perspective we want to advocate for and spark leadership to promote a systemic change in laboratory practices and approach to research. Comprehensive evidence for the environmental impact of laboratories and their root-causes is presented, expanded with data from a current case study of the University of Groningen showcasing annual savings of 398 763 € as well as 477.1 tons of CO

Identifiers

PMID38725867
PMCPMC11078267

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.