| Title |
Using non-human primates to benefit humans: research and organ transplantation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-014-9565-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Shaw, Wybo Dondorp, Guido de Wert |
| Abstract |
Emerging biotechnology may soon allow the creation of genetically human organs inside animals, with non-human primates (henceforth simply "primates") and pigs being the best candidate species. This prospect raises the question of whether creating organs in primates in order to then transplant them into humans would be more (or less) acceptable than using them for research. In this paper, we examine the validity of the purported moral distinction between primates and other animals, and analyze the ethical acceptability of using primates to create organs for human use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 14% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,776,808
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#108
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,822
of 227,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 227,621 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.