Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41582283›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2026

Ethical Challenges in Scientific Studies Within One Health.

Henrik Lerner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2026. 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

1 author.

Henrik LernerDepartment of health care sciences, Marie Cederschiöld University, P.O. Box 11189, SE-100 61, Stockholm, Sweden. henrik.lerner@mchs.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe purpose of this short literature review is to present the state of art in One Health ethics, a new field working with ethics in One Health approaches. These approaches have focused on promoting health for humans, animals, plants, and ecosystems mainly in a scientific way. Ethics has often been left out. The goal is to summarize the main findings of the limited ethics discussion in the field and propose the future way forward for the field. RECENT

findingsThere have been several calls for ethics, and the main discussion has mainly focused on (1) the ethical imperative in One Health, (2) the ethical value of ecosystems, (3) normative aspects of health, (4) core ethical concepts, and (5) ethical decision models. For the next decade this field needs to be fully developed and included as a core science within the One Health approaches. To be able to solve the complex problems these approaches are facing, such as the triple crisis (climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss), more scholars need to work with One Health ethics, which still is a rather underdeveloped field of ethics. Three future trends for the field of One Health ethics were proposed; 1) to find ethical decision models, 2) to bridge the gap between anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism, and 3) how to balance valuation between different species, organisms or levels, or ethics and economy.

Indexed as

One HealthEcosystemHumansEcoHealthEthicsHealthOne healthOne welfarePlanetary health

Identifiers

PMID41582283
PMCPMC12832580

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.