↓ Skip to main content

DDT, epigenetic harm, and transgenerational environmental justice

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
DDT, epigenetic harm, and transgenerational environmental justice
Published in
Environmental Health, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-13-62
Pubmed ID
Authors

William P Kabasenche, Michael K Skinner

Abstract

Although the environmentally harmful effects of widespread dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) use became well-known following Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962), its human health effects have more recently become clearer. A ban on the use of DDT has been in place for over 30 years, but recently DDT has been used for malaria control in areas such as Africa. Recent work shows that DDT has transgenerational effects in progeny and generations never directly exposed to DDT. These effects have health implications for individuals who are not able to have any voice in the decision to use the pesticide. The transgenerational effects of DDT are considered in light of some widely accepted ethical principles. We argue that this reframes the decision to use DDT, requiring us to incorporate new considerations, and new kinds of decision making, into the deliberative process that determines its ongoing use. Ethical considerations for intergenerational environmental justice are presented that include concern and respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, and justice. Here, we offer a characterization of the kinds of ethical considerations that must be taken into account in any satisfactory decisions to use DDT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 134 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 22%
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Researcher 6 4%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 10%
Environmental Science 13 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 34 24%
Unknown 39 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2024.
All research outputs
#713,472
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#185
of 1,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,641
of 241,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.