ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2014
Moderate eugenics and human enhancement.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Pooled it
- Modular Ontologies for Genetically Modified People and their Bioethical Implications.Nanoethics · 2024Article
- Can 'eugenics' be defended?Monash bioethics review · 2021Article
- The problem with reproductive freedom. Procreation beyond procreators' interests.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
- Looking into the shadow: the eugenics argument in debates on reproductive technologies and practices.Monash bioethics review · 2018Article
- Gut Health in the era of the human gut microbiota: from metaphor to biovalue.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2014Article
- From species ethics to social concerns: Habermas's critique of "liberal eugenics" evaluated.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2014Article
- The enhancement debate.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Though the reputation of eugenics has been tarnished by history, eugenics per se is not necessarily a bad thing. Many advocate a liberal new eugenics--where individuals are free to choose whether or not to employ genetic technologies for reproductive purposes. Though genetic interventions aimed at the prevention of severe genetic disorders may be morally and socially acceptable, reproductive liberty in the context of enhancement may conflict with equality. Enhancement could also have adverse effects on utility. The enhancement debate requires a shift in focus. What the equality and/or utility costs of enhancement will be is an empirical question. Rather than philosophical speculation, more social science research is needed to address it. Philosophers, meanwhile, should address head-on the question of how to strike a balance between liberty, equality, and utility in cases of conflict (in the context of genetics).
Indexed as
Identifiers
23728949What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.