ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026
AI Ethics Guidelines: Time to Include Animals.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence, epistemic authority, and emerging risks in veterinary clinical decision-making.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.