| Title |
Ebola Virus in West Africa: Waiting for the Owl of Minerva
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-014-9580-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ross E. G. Upshur |
| Abstract |
The evolving Ebola epidemic in West Africa is unprecedented in its size and scope, requiring the rapid mobilization of resources. It is too early to determine all of the ethical challenges associated with the outbreak, but these should be monitored closely. Two issues that can be discussed are (1) the decision to implement and evaluate unregistered agents to determine therapeutic or prophylactic safety and efficacy and (2) the justification behind this decision. In this paper, I argue that it is not compassionate use that justifies this decision and suggest three lines of reasoning to support the decision. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Professor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 30% |
| Unknown | 4 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 11 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,415,684
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#54
of 661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,419
of 262,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 262,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.