| Title |
Human–Animal Chimera: A Neuro Driven Discussion? Comparison of Three Leading European Research Countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9556-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Yenisa Cabrera Trujillo, Sabrina Engel-Glatter |
| Abstract |
Research with human-animal chimera raises a number of ethical concerns, especially when neural stem cells are transplanted into the brains of non-human primates (NHPs). Besides animal welfare concerns and ethical issues associated with the use of embryonic stem cells, the research is also regarded as controversial from the standpoint of NHPs developing cognitive or behavioural capabilities that are regarded as "unique" to humans. However, scientists are urging to test new therapeutic approaches for neurological diseases in primate models as they better mimic human physiology than all current animal models. As a response, various countries have issued reports on the topic. Our paper summarizes the ethical issues raised by research with human-animal brain chimeras and compares the relevant regulatory instruments and different recommendations issued in national reports from three important European research nations: Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. We assess and discuss the focus and priorities set by the different reports, review various reasons for and perspectives on the importance of the brain in chimera research, and identify critical points in the reports that warrant further specification and debate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 30% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
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 04 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,246,912
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#313
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,431
of 231,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 231,359 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.