Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42058613›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2026

Ethical and social difficulties of addressing environmental harms related to health research.

Gabrielle Samuel, Federica Lucivero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 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

2 authors.

Gabrielle SamuelDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, 30 Aldwych, LondonWC2B 4BG, England.
Federica LuciveroThe Oxford Centre for Ethics and Humanities and Oxford Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health research is vital to advance human well-being, but it is also a contributor to climate change and other environmental degradation. A growing bottom-up advocacy movement is engaged in developing measures (often called tools) to help researchers better understand the ways in which they can mitigate the environmental harms associated with research. While some evidence suggests benefits of using these tools, ethical and social challenges remain. These challenges include questions about: whether these tools will place undue burdens on researchers; whether the tools will be effective in supporting large-scale mitigation of environmental harm; whether using these tools to comply with mandatory requirements will divert attention away from wider discussions about what it means to conduct research in an environmentally sustainable way; and whether these tools, which have been developed in high-income countries, reinforce existing power imbalances between high- and low-income settings and/or fail to address the needs of more marginalized research communities. In this paper, we identify and describe these ethical and social issues surrounding the use of these tools. Our aim is not to discourage their use but to urge policy-makers to reflect on these challenges as they become clearer so that tools are implemented in a way that is both effective and just.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClimate ChangeEnvironmental HealthEnvironmentEnvironmental PolicyEthics, ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID42058613
PMCPMC13123441

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.