Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42159057›Full record

ArticleBioethics2026

Should Moral Repair Be Offered to Morally Injured Laboratory Animal Technicians?

John Goris, Jane Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 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.

John GorisMacquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8888-9905
Jane JohnsonMacquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council FT210100345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lab-technicians are at risk of sustaining moral injuries when complicit in unethical experiments. Prima facie, it would be puzzling to offer the perpetrator of an unethical experiment psychological support in the form of moral repair. However, we argue that lab technicians are owed moral repair as a special case of our proposed duty of special concern. The duty of special concern states that special consideration must be given to the welfare of those who undertake substantial risks for the benefit of others in a cooperative scheme. We make sense of the substantial risk of moral concern lab technicians face by drawing on Rawls' notion of imperfect procedures of justice. Imperfect procedures of justice are those that aim for just outcomes, but procedures do not guarantee those outcomes. Animal experimentation belongs to this category, as it aims for only ethical experiments to be conducted, yet that result is not guaranteed by its procedures. The risk of moral injury falls heavily on lab technicians as they will be the ones to implement the unethical experiment. Hence, we make sense of the puzzling intuition that lab technicians have conducted an unethical experiment yet are owed psychological support.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimal TechniciansMoral ObligationsMoralsSocial JusticeAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryAnimal WelfareEthical DilemmasHumansanimal experimentslab techniciansmoral injurymoral repairRawls

Identifiers

PMID42159057
PMCPMC13570754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.