Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39153014›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2024

One R or the other - an experimental bioethics approach to 3R dilemmas in animal research.

Christian Rodriguez Perez, David M Shaw, Brian D Earp, Bernice S Elger, Kirsten Persson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2024. 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. Methods and Models for StudyingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 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

5 authors.

Christian Rodriguez PerezInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. c.rodriguezperez@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8944-1504
David M ShawInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8180-6927
Brian D EarpOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9691-2888
Bernice S ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4249-7399
Kirsten PerssonInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8783-1437

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sacrificial dilemmas such as the trolley problem play an important role in experimental philosophy (x-phi). But it is increasingly argued that, since we are not likely to encounter runaway trolleys in our daily life, the usefulness of such thought experiments for understanding moral judgments in more ecologically valid contexts may be limited. However, similar sacrificial dilemmas are experienced in real life by animal research decision makers. As part of their job, they must make decisions about the suffering, and often the death, of many non-human animals. For this reason, a context-specific investigation of so-called "3R dilemmas" (i.e., dilemmas where there is a conflict between the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of animals in research) is essential to improve the situation of both non-human animals and human stakeholders. An approach well suited for such investigation is experimental philosophical bioethics ("bioxphi"), which draws on methods similar to x-phi to probe more realistic, practical scenarios with an eye to informing normative debates and ethical policy. In this article, we argue for a need to investigate 3R dilemmas among professional decision-makers using the tools of bioxphi. In a first step, we define 3R dilemmas and discuss previous investigations of professionals' attitudes in such cases. In a second step, we show how bioxphi is a promising method to investigate the whys and hows of professional decision-making in 3R dilemmas. In a last step, we provide a bioxphi template for 3R dilemmas, give recommendations on its use, explore the normative relevance of data collected by such means, and discuss important limitations.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimalsBioethicsDecision MakingHumansMorals3R dilemmas3Rs principleAnimal researchExperimental bioethicsResearchers’ decision-making

Identifiers

PMID39153014
PMCPMC11519301

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.