Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19340608›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2009

Forbidding science: some beginning reflections.

Leon R Kass

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Editors' overview: forbidding science?Science and engineering ethics · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Leon R KassAmerican Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 20036, USA. LKass@AEI.org
American Enterprise Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growing powers to manipulate human bodies and minds, not merely to heal disease but to satisfy desires, control deviant behavior, and to change human nature, make urgent questions of whether and how to regulate their use, not merely to assure safety and efficacy but also to safeguard our humanity. Oversight in democratic societies rightly belongs to the polity, not merely to self-appointed experts, scientific or ethical. Yet the task of governing the uses of dangerous knowledge is daunting, and there is little evidence that we have the will or the wisdom to do it well.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchGovernment RegulationAdvisory CommitteesBioethical IssuesBiomedical ResearchEmbryo ResearchHumansSocial ResponsibilityUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19340608
OpenAlexW2053612594

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.