↓ Skip to main content

The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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 institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-6-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark J Rice

Abstract

Biomedical research today can be generally classified as human-based or nonhuman animal-based, each with separate and distinct review boards that must approve research protocols. Researchers wishing to work with humans or human tissues have become frustrated by the required burdensome approval panel, the Institutional Review Board. However, scientists have found it is much easier to work with the animal-based research review board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Consequently, animals are used for investigations even when scientists believe these studies should be performed with humans or human tissue. This situation deserves attention from society and more specifically the animal protection and patient advocate communities, as neither patients nor animals are well served by the present situation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Mexico 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 29 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Other 9 27%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Philosophy 4 12%
Engineering 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#9,550,667
of 12,430,577 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#163
of 176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,311
of 116,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,430,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 116,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.