The inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review
Abstract Background The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (UDAR), adopted in 1977 by an international NGO inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and made public the following year, aimed to establish a universal code for human conduct toward animals. The declaration was revised t...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | BMC Veterinary Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04470-z |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823862016842924032 |
|---|---|
| author | Alexandre Azevedo Martin Whiting Manuel Magalhães-Sant’Ana |
| author_facet | Alexandre Azevedo Martin Whiting Manuel Magalhães-Sant’Ana |
| author_sort | Alexandre Azevedo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (UDAR), adopted in 1977 by an international NGO inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and made public the following year, aimed to establish a universal code for human conduct toward animals. The declaration was revised twice, in 1989 and 2018, but it failed to be internationally recognised or adopted. While its global influence remained limited, misinterpretations of its scope and context have proliferated in legal and veterinary documents. To gauge its impact on scientific literature, a scoping review across three databases (Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) was conducted for publications citing the UDAR from 1979 to 2022. Results In terms of research field, the UDAR is mostly cited in the fields of law (27%), philosophy, ethics, and religion (17%), clinical medicine (17%), and basic medicine (11%). The 1978 UDAR version was most often cited. Among 305 screened publications, 47.9% contained erroneous or misleading claims about the UDAR. Common errors included linking the UDAR to UNESCO (34.8%) and conferring it universal endorsement or legally binding value (10.2%). More than half (57%, 59/103) of the mentions in the ethics section contained errors, namely confusing UDAR with other animal protection texts. Regarding the type of animal use, most misleading claims were found in scientific publications focusing on the use of animals in research. Conclusions The misappropriation of the UDAR risks providing a false sense of legitimacy and moral compass to editors, reviewers, and readers regarding animal use and highlights that the authors are unaware of ethical or regulatory frameworks governing the proper use of animals in science. This is particularly relevant because the 1978 version, which is antithetical to animal use in science, was most often cited, raising concerns about the governance of animal research in some institutions and the efficacy of the peer review process in detecting these errors. Finally, UDAR mentions grew more than the estimated growth of scientific publications worldwide, thus suggesting an increase in its influence. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-fb77b5d16ea24489ae4396e4184bea95 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1746-6148 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Veterinary Research |
| spelling | doaj-art-fb77b5d16ea24489ae4396e4184bea952025-02-09T12:41:52ZengBMCBMC Veterinary Research1746-61482025-02-0121111010.1186/s12917-025-04470-zThe inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping reviewAlexandre Azevedo0Martin Whiting1Manuel Magalhães-Sant’Ana2CIVG – Vasco da Gama Research Center, EUVG – Vasco da Gama University SchoolCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of LisbonCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of LisbonAbstract Background The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (UDAR), adopted in 1977 by an international NGO inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and made public the following year, aimed to establish a universal code for human conduct toward animals. The declaration was revised twice, in 1989 and 2018, but it failed to be internationally recognised or adopted. While its global influence remained limited, misinterpretations of its scope and context have proliferated in legal and veterinary documents. To gauge its impact on scientific literature, a scoping review across three databases (Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar) was conducted for publications citing the UDAR from 1979 to 2022. Results In terms of research field, the UDAR is mostly cited in the fields of law (27%), philosophy, ethics, and religion (17%), clinical medicine (17%), and basic medicine (11%). The 1978 UDAR version was most often cited. Among 305 screened publications, 47.9% contained erroneous or misleading claims about the UDAR. Common errors included linking the UDAR to UNESCO (34.8%) and conferring it universal endorsement or legally binding value (10.2%). More than half (57%, 59/103) of the mentions in the ethics section contained errors, namely confusing UDAR with other animal protection texts. Regarding the type of animal use, most misleading claims were found in scientific publications focusing on the use of animals in research. Conclusions The misappropriation of the UDAR risks providing a false sense of legitimacy and moral compass to editors, reviewers, and readers regarding animal use and highlights that the authors are unaware of ethical or regulatory frameworks governing the proper use of animals in science. This is particularly relevant because the 1978 version, which is antithetical to animal use in science, was most often cited, raising concerns about the governance of animal research in some institutions and the efficacy of the peer review process in detecting these errors. Finally, UDAR mentions grew more than the estimated growth of scientific publications worldwide, thus suggesting an increase in its influence.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04470-zAnimal rightsBioethicsAnimal welfareResearch ethicsCitation error |
| spellingShingle | Alexandre Azevedo Martin Whiting Manuel Magalhães-Sant’Ana The inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review BMC Veterinary Research Animal rights Bioethics Animal welfare Research ethics Citation error |
| title | The inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review |
| title_full | The inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review |
| title_fullStr | The inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review |
| title_full_unstemmed | The inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review |
| title_short | The inaccurate citation of the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review |
| title_sort | inaccurate citation of the universal declaration of animal rights udar in the scientific literature a scoping review |
| topic | Animal rights Bioethics Animal welfare Research ethics Citation error |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04470-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alexandreazevedo theinaccuratecitationoftheuniversaldeclarationofanimalrightsudarinthescientificliteratureascopingreview AT martinwhiting theinaccuratecitationoftheuniversaldeclarationofanimalrightsudarinthescientificliteratureascopingreview AT manuelmagalhaessantana theinaccuratecitationoftheuniversaldeclarationofanimalrightsudarinthescientificliteratureascopingreview AT alexandreazevedo inaccuratecitationoftheuniversaldeclarationofanimalrightsudarinthescientificliteratureascopingreview AT martinwhiting inaccuratecitationoftheuniversaldeclarationofanimalrightsudarinthescientificliteratureascopingreview AT manuelmagalhaessantana inaccuratecitationoftheuniversaldeclarationofanimalrightsudarinthescientificliteratureascopingreview |