Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40714925›Full record

ArticleBioethics2025

Reimagining Social Value to Consider the Environment: How Should We Judge the Magnitude of Benefits in Health Research?

Bridget Pratt, Rieke van der Graaf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2025. 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
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

2 authors.

Bridget PrattQueensland Bioethics Centre, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4934-3560
Rieke van der GraafDepartment of Bioethics and Health Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4907-7044

Funding

This study was funded by the Mater Miscordiae Limited.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growing recognition of intersections between our health and the environment, healthcare systems and the environment, and health research and the environment has led bioethics scholars to advocate that the field readopt a broader perspective that considers nature. As part of doing so, we urgently need to reimagine research ethics concepts and frameworks so that they account for the environment. This paper focuses on how we should reinterpret the ethical concept of social value in health research. The concept is understood in absolute and relative terms, and both must be revised. The absolute social value of health research is determined by judging its magnitude of benefits and likelihood of benefits. This paper aims to generate considerations for judging health research's magnitude of benefits that capture its environmental benefits. We start from the most comprehensive definition of absolute social value to-date and show how it falls short of adequately capturing the magnitude of potential benefits generated by health research that yields knowledge related to nature. Based on that analysis, we propose how to revise the definition of absolute social value to better account for the environment. To conclude, we highlight questions that our suggested revisions raise for making relative social value assessments that consider the environment.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEnvironmentSocial ValuesEthics, ResearchHumansclimate changeenvironmenthealth researchresearch ethicssocial valuesustainability

Identifiers

PMID40714925
PMCPMC12511906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.