ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2018
Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents?
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- The road to restore male fertility using in vitro-derived germ cells.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- Navigating the human gene editing scene and proposing a new governance framework in Africa: from knowledge to policy to action.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Article
- Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025Article
- A critical view on using "life not worth living" in the bioethics of assisted reproduction.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
- An Update on the Application of CRISPR Technology in Clinical Practice.Molecular biotechnology · 2024Review
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Gene Editing, Identity and Benefit.The Philosophical quarterly · 2022Article
- Review
- Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Human genome editing and the identity politics of genetic disability.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Human germline genome editing is illegal in Canada, but could it be desirable for some members of the rare disease community?Journal of community genetics · 2020Review
- Responsible Translational Pathways for Germline Gene Editing?Current stem cell reports · 2020Review
- Designing Preclinical Studies in Germline Gene Editing: Scientific and Ethical Aspects.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- The 'serious' factor in germline modification.Journal of medical ethics · 2019Article
- In risk we trust/Editing embryos and mirroring future risks and uncertainties.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Regulating Genome Editing: For an Enlightened Democratic Governance.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2019Article
- 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
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
Abstract
This paper explores the ethics of introducing genome-editing technologies as a new reproductive option. In particular, it focuses on whether genome editing can be considered a morally valuable alternative to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Two arguments against the use of genome editing in reproduction are analysed, namely safety concerns and germline modification. These arguments are then contrasted with arguments in favour of genome editing, in particular with the argument of the child's welfare and the argument of parental reproductive autonomy. In addition to these two arguments, genome editing could be considered as a worthy alternative to PGD as it may not be subjected to some of the moral critiques moved against this technology. Even if these arguments offer sound reasons in favour of introducing genome editing as a new reproductive option, I conclude that these benefits should be balanced against other considerations. More specifically, I maintain that concerns regarding the equality of access to assisted reproduction and the allocation of scarce resources should be addressed prior to the adoption of genome editing as a new reproductive option.
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.