Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42643604›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal for philosophy of science2026

Lane-Petter's Pipeline: Why reliably decreasing animal research takes more than replacements.

Nico Dario Müller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal for philosophy of science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Nico Dario MüllerPhilosophical Seminar, University of Basel, Steinengraben 5, 4051 Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0866-8235

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Programs for the "three Rs" of "replace, reduce, refine" (Russell & Burch 1959) aim to make science more compatible with animal protection. This article draws attention to a major obstacle to that endeavor: While some animal models are being replaced by alternatives, new animal models are also being developed. Animal research thus resembles a moving pipeline, not a fixed set of models, as British scientist and regulator William Lane-Petter noted over half a century ago (Lane-Petter 1961). This article provides an account of "Lane-Petter's Pipeline" (LPP) by drawing on philosophical literature on animal models and advances two claims: First, there is practically infinite room for the innovation of new animal models, so LPP can continue to move indefinitely unless policy intervenes; Second, the extent to which innovation focuses on new animal models rather than new non-animal-models plausibly depends on scientific repertoires (Ankeny & Leonelli, 2016) and the built environment of scientific work, which policy can help to shape. This highlights the potential, and the need, for strategic policies that tilt the environment of innovation towards new non-animal-models rather than new animal models.

Indexed as

Animal researchInnovationMaterial modelsPolicyReplacementThree Rs

Identifiers

PMID42643604
PMCPMC13503504

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.