ReviewBriefings in functional genomics2017
Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society.
Review in Briefings in functional genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Ray of Hope for Infertility.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Clinical translation of human iPSC technologies: advances, safety concerns, and future directions.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Pooled screening with next-generation gene editing tools.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Mapping the 'Ethical' Controversy of Human Heritable Genome Editing: a Multidisciplinary Approach.Asian bioethics review · 2023Article
- Governance of Heritable Human Gene Editing World-Wide and Beyond.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Are we ready for the revision of the 14-day rule? Implications from Chinese legislations guiding human embryo and embryoid research.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Genome editing with the CRISPR-Cas system: an art, ethics and global regulatory perspective.Plant biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2020Article
- Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in favour of germline interventions?Bioethics · 2020Article
- Recent advances in mammalian reproductive biology.Science China. Life sciences · 2020Review
- Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges.The Hastings Center report · 2019Article
- Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
- Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Review
- Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An ethical analysis.Asian bioethics review · 2018Article
- Mitochondrial manipulation in fertility clinics: Regulation and responsibility.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2018Article
- Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.Human reproduction open · 2018Article
- Better beings?Nature biotechnology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing allows for the versatile genetic modification of somatic cells, germ cells and embryos. In particular, CRISPR/Cas9 is worldwide used in biomedical research. Although the first report on Cas9-mediated gene modification in human embryos focused on the prevention of a genetic disease in offspring, it raised profound ethical and social concerns over the safety of subsequent generations and the potential misuse of genome editing for human enhancement. The present article considers germ line genome editing approaches from various clinical and ethical viewpoints and explores its objectives. The risks and benefits of the following three likely objectives are assessed: the prevention of monogenic diseases, personalized assisted reproductive technology (ART) and genetic enhancement. Although genetic enhancement should be avoided, the international regulatory landscape suggests the inevitability of this misuse at ART centers. Under these circumstances, possible regulatory responses and the potential roles of public dialogue are discussed.
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.