ArticleBioscience2025
Clarifying ethical stances in conservation: a trolley problem thought experiment.
Article in Bioscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Easy rescues, difficult decisions: Advancing the ethical dialogue in wildlife triage, treatment and rehabilitation.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Review
- Harms of introduced large herbivores outweigh benefits to native biodiversity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Conceptual and ethical considerations in invasion science.Bioscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conservation policies often need to integrate scientific predictions with ethical considerations. However, different normative ethical systems at the root of conservation approaches often support different decisions, and the moral stances of stakeholders are influenced by diverse societal values and perceptions. This creates the potential for dilemmas and conflicts. In the present article, we adapt the well-known trolley problem thought experiment to a conservation context. Exploring variations in how the problem is framed enables us to highlight key concepts that need to be considered in decision-making (uncertainty; asymmetry in numbers, victims, and impacts; temporal and spatial asymmetry; causal relationships and stakeholder involvement). We argue that the trolley problem offers a simplified but flexible framework to understand and predict the factors underlying differences in moral stances across diverse conservation issues, foster communication, and facilitate informed decision-making in conservation practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.