↓ Skip to main content

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13010-014-0020-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ari R Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton, Nathan Nobis

Abstract

IntroductionPediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing.DesignAfter development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR.Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P¿<¿.05 considered significant.ResultsResponse rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered `benefits arguments¿ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same `benefits arguments¿ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened `benefits arguments¿. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by `characteristics of non-human-animals arguments¿, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by `human exceptionalism¿ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special `kind¿, can enter into social contracts, or face a `lifeboat situation¿. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of `kind¿ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind `sentient animal¿ or `subject-of-a-life¿]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar.ConclusionsMost respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 21%
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Librarian 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Social Sciences 4 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 5 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,427,329
of 12,430,577 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#72
of 176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,717
of 266,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,430,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 266,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.