ReviewBioethics2014
Bioethics methods in the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome project literature.
Review in Bioethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Australian LINEAGE Study: advancing and implementing international guidance on genomic data within local governance frameworks.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Genomics Research: Implications for Building a More Racially Diverse Bioethics Workforce.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Articulating 'free, prior and informed consent' (FPIC) for engineered gene drives.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Attitudes toward the right to autonomous decision-making in psychiatric genetic testing: Controversial and context-dependent.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2019Article
- The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements.PloS one · 2019Article
- One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Commentary: Grand challenge: ELSI in a changing global environment.Frontiers in genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While bioethics as a field has concerned itself with methodological issues since the early years, there has been no systematic examination of how ethics is incorporated into research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of the Human Genome Project. Yet ELSI research may bear a particular burden of investigating and substantiating its methods given public funding, an explicitly cross-disciplinary approach, and the perceived significance of adequate responsiveness to advances in genomics. We undertook a qualitative content analysis of a sample of ELSI publications appearing between 2003 and 2008 with the aim of better understanding the methods, aims, and approaches to ethics that ELSI researchers employ. We found that the aims of ethics within ELSI are largely prescriptive and address multiple groups. We also found that the bioethics methods used in the ELSI literature are both diverse between publications and multiple within publications, but are usually not themselves discussed or employed as suggested by bioethics method proponents. Ethics in ELSI is also sometimes undistinguished from related inquiries (such as social, legal, or political investigations).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.