ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018
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.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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.
- An ethical framework for human genomic enhancement in China.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Organoid Ethical Typology: varieties of three-dimensional stem cell constructs and the many issues they raise in bioethics.Biology of the cell · 2025Review
- Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: first steps and future directions.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- CRISPR-Based Therapies: Revolutionizing Drug Development and Precision Medicine.Current gene therapy · 2024Review
- "What if" should precede "whether" and "how" in the social conversation around human germline gene editing.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Governance of Heritable Human Gene Editing World-Wide and Beyond.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Genetics Matters: Voyaging from the Past into the Future of Humanity and Sustainability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Strategies to overcome the main challenges of the use of CRISPR/Cas9 as a replacement for cancer therapy.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
- Dynamics of reproductive genetic technologies: Perspectives of professional stakeholders.PloS one · 2022Article
- Will CRISPR-Cas9 Have Cards to Play Against Cancer? An Update on its Applications.Molecular biotechnology · 2021Review
- Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Is Malaysia Ready for Human Gene Editing: A Regulatory, Biosafety and Biosecurity Perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Review
- Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Novel Therapies for Prevention and Early Treatment of Cardiomyopathies.Circulation research · 2019Review
- Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges.The Hastings Center report · 2019Article
- Gene Editing in Clinical Practice: Where are We?Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2019Review
- Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It?The CRISPR journal · 2018Article
- Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing. Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.Human reproduction open · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene editing, which allows for specific location(s) in the genome to be targeted and altered by deleting, adding or substituting nucleotides, is currently the subject of important academic and policy discussions. With the advent of efficient tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, the plausibility of using gene editing safely in humans for either somatic or germ line gene editing is being considered seriously. Beyond safety issues, somatic gene editing in humans does raise ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI), however, it is suggested to be less challenging to existing ethical and legal frameworks; indeed somatic gene editing is already applied in (pre-) clinical trials. In contrast, the notion of altering the germ line or embryo such that alterations could be heritable in humans raises a large number of ELSI; it is currently debated whether it should even be allowed in the context of basic research. Even greater ELSI debates address the potential use of germ line or embryo gene editing for clinical purposes, which, at the moment is not being conducted and is prohibited in several jurisdictions. In the context of these ongoing debates surrounding gene editing, we present herein guidance to further discussion and investigation by highlighting three crucial areas that merit the most attention, time and resources at this stage in the responsible development and use of gene editing technologies: (1) conducting careful scientific research and disseminating results to build a solid evidence base; (2) conducting ethical, legal and social issues research; and (3) conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement, education and dialogue.
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.