Dataset Information

A review of the Institute of Medicine's analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research.

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.

SUBMITTER: Jones RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4033812 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A review of the Institute of Medicine's analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research.

Jones Robert C RC Greek Ray R

Science and engineering ethics 20130425 2

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 ...[more]

PMID: 23616243

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

Project description:BackgroundData provenance refers to the origin, processing, and movement of data. Reliable and precise knowledge about data provenance has great potential to improve reproducibility as well as quality in biomedical research and, therefore, to foster good scientific practice. However, despite the increasing interest on data provenance technologies in the literature and their implementation in other disciplines, these technologies have not yet been widely adopted in biomedical research.ObjectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to provide a structured overview of the body of knowledge on provenance methods in biomedical research by systematizing articles covering data provenance technologies developed for or used in this application area; describing and comparing the functionalities as well as the design of the provenance technologies used; and identifying gaps in the literature, which could provide opportunities for future research on technologies that could receive more widespread adoption.MethodsFollowing a methodological framework for scoping studies and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, articles were identified by searching the PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science databases and subsequently screened for eligibility. We included original articles covering software-based provenance management for scientific research published between 2010 and 2021. A set of data items was defined along the following five axes: publication metadata, application scope, provenance aspects covered, data representation, and functionalities. The data items were extracted from the articles, stored in a charting spreadsheet, and summarized in tables and figures.ResultsWe identified 44 original articles published between 2010 and 2021. We found that the solutions described were heterogeneous along all axes. We also identified relationships among motivations for the use of provenance information, feature sets (capture, storage, retrieval, visualization, and analysis), and implementation details such as the data models and technologies used. The important gap that we identified is that only a few publications address the analysis of provenance data or use established provenance standards, such as PROV.ConclusionsThe heterogeneity of provenance methods, models, and implementations found in the literature points to the lack of a unified understanding of provenance concepts for biomedical data. Providing a common framework, a biomedical reference, and benchmarking data sets could foster the development of more comprehensive provenance solutions.

Project description:BackgroundThe evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsBibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017.ResultsAnalysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean = 18.03, SD = 3.63, maximum = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean = 1.83) for the analysed publications.ConclusionsThe NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.

Dataset Information

A review of the Institute of Medicine's analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research.

Publications

A review of the Institute of Medicine's analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets