Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42349877›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2026

Collaboration between Human and Veterinary Research and Medical Experts Could Provide a Balanced Discussion on the Ethics of Using Animals in Research.

Donna J Clemons, Stuart Leland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 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.

Donna J Clemons1Veterinary Consortium for Research Animal Care and Welfare; and.
Stuart Leland1Veterinary Consortium for Research Animal Care and Welfare; and.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal use in biomedical research continues to present ethical issues regarding justification, care, and welfare. There are differing viewpoints for the continued use of animals in research, testing, and training, and the public can easily search for viewpoints that support a single perspective but rarely are provided with a balanced discussion. An issue of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics (September 2024, vol. 26, no. 9) exemplifies this problem by providing many views opposing the continued use of animals in research without allowing or providing input from those in the laboratory animal science profession. As a result, many of the views represented in the journal misrepresent important considerations that currently exist when considering the ethical use of animals in research. If a more diverse set of experts, including those with knowledge of laboratory animal medicine, governance, application of the 3Rs, and nonanimal alternatives, were invited into the discussion, we believe that a more accurate perspective of this issue could have been presented. Such diverse viewpoints would have fostered a better atmosphere that more accurately reflects the current reality of how animal use in research is considered by IACUCs. A better understanding of differing perspectives, and with further opportunity for respectful dialogue, could more effectively move this issue forward.

Indexed as

AMA JE, American Medical Association Journal of EthicsFAQ, frequently asked questionMPS, microphysiologic systemsOLAW, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare

Identifiers

PMID42349877
PMCPMC13446390

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.