ArticleHuman genomics2017
Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good.
Article in Human genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Induced Pluripotent (iPSC) and Mesenchymal (MSC) Stem Cells for In Vitro Disease Modeling and Regenerative Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Commoning genomic solidarity to improve global health equality.Cell genomics · 2023Review
- Review: Recent Applications of Gene Editing in Fish Species and Aquatic Medicine.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- DGK and DZHK position paper on genome editing: basic science applications and future perspective.Basic research in cardiology · 2021Review
- Is Malaysia Ready for Human Gene Editing: A Regulatory, Biosafety and Biosecurity Perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2021Article
- Genome Editing for Rare Diseases.Current stem cell reports · 2020Article
- Science Runs and the Debate Brakes: Somatic Gene-Editing as a New Tool for Gender-Specific Medicine in Alzheimer's Disease.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- Germline genome editing: public dialogue is urgent but not self-evident.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Review
- Rare Opportunities: CRISPR/Cas-Based Therapy Development for Rare Genetic Diseases.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper considers the tensions created in genomic research by public and private for-profit ideals. Our intent is to strengthen the public good at a time when doing science is strongly motivated by market possibilities and opportunities. Focusing on the emergence of gene editing, and in particular CRISPR, we consider how commercialisation encourages hype and hope-a sense that only promise and idealism can achieve progress. At this rate, genomic research reinforces structures that promote, above all else, private interests, but that may attenuate conditions for the public good of science. In the first part, we situate genomics using the aphorism that 'on the shoulders of giants we see farther'; these giants are infrastructures and research cultures rather than individual 'heroes' of science. In this respect, private initiatives are not the only pivot for successful discovery, and indeed, fascination in those could impinge upon the fundamental role of public-supported discovery. To redress these circumstances, we define the extent to which progress presupposes research strategies that are for the public good. In the second part, we use a 'falling giant' narrative to illustrate the risks of over-indulging for-profit initiatives. We therefore offer a counterpoint to commercialised science, using three identifiable 'giants'-scientists, publics and cultures-to illustrate how the public good contributes to genomic discovery.
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.