ReviewPersonalized medicine2016
Emerging ethical perspectives in the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats genome-editing debate.
Review in Personalized medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Pooled it
- The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Pooled it
- Mapping the 'Ethical' Controversy of Human Heritable Genome Editing: a Multidisciplinary Approach.Asian bioethics review · 2023Article
- Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2018Article
- Invasion and migration of spatially self-limiting gene drives: A comparative analysis.Evolutionary applications · 2018Article
- A 14-day limit for bioethics: the debate over human embryo research.BMC medical ethics · 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
This paper provides an overview of the ethical issues in the international clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) genome editing debate from March 2015 to September 2016. We present the regulatory framework for embryo research in the UK, and explain why CRISPR is not a significant break with the past. We discuss the ethical issues arising from CRISPR applications beyond human embryos, namely the use of gene drive-engineered mosquitoes to eradicate diseases, engineering nonhuman animals to harvest organs for human transplant and engineering crops. We discuss the experiments that have demonstrated the technical feasibility of cultivating embryos
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.