Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42791687›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

A Step Too Far? Public Perceptions on Navigating the Introduction of Robot Technologies into the Human-Animal Relationship in Agriculture.

Cheryl Travers, Robert Sparrow, Angie Sassano, Megan Frances Moss, Chris Degeling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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

5 authors.

Cheryl TraversAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2522, Australia.
Robert SparrowDepartment of Philosophy, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6093-9456
Angie SassanoDepartment of Philosophy, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4153-4856
Megan Frances MossDepartment of Philosophy, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1636-8144
Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), University of Wollongong, Wollongong 2522, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-3443

Funding

Australian Research Council DP220102952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robots are being developed to perform the day-to-day operational tasks of animal agriculture, affecting the way in which humans and farm animals interact. There is the prospect of automation increasing to the point where humans would hardly set foot on farms, which, aside from the consumption of animal-based products, could entirely disconnect humans and farmed animals from each other. Yet the literature on public attitudes towards the introduction of agricultural robots into the human-animal relationship is sparse. Here, we consider the public acceptability of introducing robots into the human-animal relationship in agriculture. Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 12 dialogue groups and two community juries with members of the Australian public on the social and ethical impacts of automation in agriculture. We draw on insights from these empirical studies to highlight the underlying values that inform different attitudes towards robots taking on tasks previously performed by humans in animal farming. Across our empirical work, we consistently found three key factors influencing the willingness of members of the public to accept agricultural robots into the human-animal relationship: moral responsibility for farm animals; human intuition and empathy; and a natural life as a condition of animal welfare. Our data suggested that the removal of humans from all contact with farmed animals by adopting highly roboticized farming will likely be rejected by the Australian public as "a step too far", largely due to its moral and social implications. We identify a set of conditions that are likely to be important to public acceptability of the use of robots in animal agriculture.

Indexed as

animal agricultureanimal welfareethicshuman–animal relationshiprobotics

Identifiers

PMID42791687
PMCPMC13603101

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.