Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41504948›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

AI Ethics Guidelines: Time to Include Animals.

Simon Coghlan, Christine Parker, Reeva Lederman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. 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. 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

3 authors.

Simon CoghlanSchool of Computing and Information Systems, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, The University of Melbourne, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. simon.coghlan@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6021-9878
Christine ParkerMelbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1870-5706
Reeva LedermanSchool of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4005-329X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics guidelines make strong appeals for ensuring that AI benefits human beings without unjustifiably harming them. Yet these guidelines largely overlook AIs ethically relevant positive and negative impacts on sentient nonhuman animals. This paper argues that it is time to include sentient animals in AI ethics guidelines produced by governments, supranational and intergovernmental bodies, NGOs, academics, professional groups, for-profit corporations, and the like. AI ethics guidelines should explicitly and adequately include values and principles that protect and promote sentient animal interests. The case proceeds by considering five possible objections to recognising animals in these guidelines: 1) Animals and their interests are not significantly affected by AI; 2) Humans lack duties to protect or help animals; 3) Considering animals is overridden by more pressing duties to humans; 4) There is too much disagreement about how animals should be treated; 5) AI ethics guidelines are unhelpful or counterproductive. These objections, the paper argues, ultimately fail. A very important reason for being more inclusive of animals, it claims, is their ongoing moral and social invisibility. Paying more attention to sentient animals as morally significant interest-holders in the rapidly evolving AI ethics discourse would go one step towards redressing this problem of marginalisation. Finally, this paper makes broad suggestions for how animals might be appropriately incorporated in ethics guidelines.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimal WelfareArtificial IntelligenceGuidelines as TopicAnimalsHumansMoral ObligationsArtificial intelligenceEthics guidelinesMoral valueNonhuman animalsSentience

Identifiers

PMID41504948
PMCPMC12827453

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.