| Title |
A Review of the Institute of Medicine’s Analysis of using Chimpanzees in Biomedical Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-013-9442-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert C. Jones, Ray Greek |
| Abstract |
We argue that the recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine's 2011 report, Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity, are methodologically and ethically confused. We argue that a proper understanding of evolution and complexity theory in terms of the science and ethics of using chimpanzees in biomedical research would have had led the committee to recommend not merely limiting but eliminating the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. Specifically, we argue that a proper understanding of the difference between the gross level of examination of species and examinations on finer levels can shed light on important methodological and ethical inconsistencies leading to ignorance of potentially unethical practices and policies regarding the use of animals in scientific research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 December 2020.
All research outputs
#14,223,569
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#632
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,160
of 196,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 196,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.