Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41758891›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Perceptions of assisted reproductive technologies in wildlife conservation: Public expectations and ethical implications across three EU countries.

Pierfrancesco Biasetti, Thomas Hildebrandt, Steven Seet, Jan Stejskal, Paolo Giardullo, Frank Göritz, Susanne Holtze, Cesare Galli, Michal Šťastný, Barbara de Mori

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

10 authors.

Pierfrancesco BiasettiDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4309-4655
Thomas HildebrandtDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Steven SeetEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation, and Animal Welfare, University of Padova, Legnaro, Italy.
Jan StejskalZOO Dvůr Králové, Dvůr Králové nad Labem, Czechia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8179-2852
Paolo GiardulloDepartment of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University di Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2560-9088
Frank GöritzDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne HoltzeDepartment of Reproduction Management, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany.
Cesare GalliAvantea Labs, Cremona, Italy.
Michal ŠťastnýZOO Dvůr Králové, Dvůr Králové nad Labem, Czechia.
Barbara de MoriEthics Laboratory for Veterinary Medicine, Conservation, and Animal Welfare, University of Padova, Legnaro, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper examines public perceptions of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in wildlife conservation across three European countries: Czechia, Germany, and Italy. In the context of ongoing biodiversity decline, ART can support conservation efforts by promoting population growth, facilitating genetic exchange, and enhancing genetic diversity through genome resource banks. However, the application of ART in wildlife conservation may challenge conventional views on reproduction and extinction and raise ethical considerations, for example concerning animal welfare. To assess public views and ethical concerns, we conducted a survey in three EU countries involved in the BioRescue project, a conservation initiative employing ART to prevent the extinction of the Northern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum cottoni). The survey explored respondents' attitudes toward biodiversity loss, awareness of the rhinoceros crisis, support for ART in wildlife conservation, and their primary sources of environmental information. The findings inform recommendations for improving conservation communication and fostering public acceptance of ART in wildlife conservation, while emphasizing the need for rigorous ethical oversight to ensure their responsible application.

Indexed as

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesPublic OpinionReproductive Techniques, AssistedAnimalsEuropean UnionFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID41758891
PMCPMC12948088

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.