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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-016-0100-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ari R. Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton, Nathan Nobis |
| Abstract |
To determine whether the public and scientists consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of animal research (AR) convincing. After validation, the survey was sent to samples of public (Sampling Survey International (SSI; Canadian), Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT; US), a Canadian city festival and children's hospital), medical students (two second-year classes), and scientists (corresponding authors, and academic pediatricians). We presented questions about common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses were compared using Chi-square with Bonferonni correction. There were 1220 public [SSI, n = 586; AMT, n = 439; Festival, n = 195; Hospital n = 107], 194/331 (59 %) medical student, and 19/319 (6 %) scientist [too few to report] responses. Most public respondents were <45 years (65 %), had some College/University education (83 %), and had never done AR (92 %). Most public and medical student respondents considered 'benefits arguments' sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same 'benefits arguments' do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened 'benefits arguments'. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'characteristics of non-human-animals arguments', including that non-human-animals are not sentient, or are property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by 'human exceptionalism' arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special 'kind', can enter social contracts, or face a 'lifeboat situation'. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities ['argument from species overlap'], and that the notion of 'kind' is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the 'kind' 'sentient-animal' or 'subject-of-a-life'?]. Medical students were more supportive (80 %) of AR at the end of the survey (p < 0.05). Responses suggest that support for AR may not be based on cogent philosophical rationales, and more open debate is warranted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 41 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Engineering | 8 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 23% |
| Unknown | 43 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 November 2019.
All research outputs
#8,410,141
of 25,124,631 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#699
of 1,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,030
of 307,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,124,631 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 307,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.