ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018
Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dutch Christian Faith Leaders Deliberating Human Germline Gene Editing: A Qualitative Study.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Prenatal gene editing for neurodevelopmental diseases: Ethical considerations.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- The need to set explicit goals for human germline gene editing public dialogues.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Human Heritable Genome Editing and its Governance: Views of Scientists and Governance Professionals.New genetics and society · 2024Article
- Genome editing of human embryos for research purposes: Japanese lay and expert attitudes.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Genetics Matters: Voyaging from the Past into the Future of Humanity and Sustainability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Gene Therapy Targeting p53 and KRAS for Colorectal Cancer Treatment: A Myth or the Way Forward?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.The CRISPR journal · 2021Article
- 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
- Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Systematic scoping review of the concept of 'genetic identity' and its relevance for germline modification.PloS one · 2020Article
- Perspectives of Sickle Cell Disease Stakeholders on Heritable Genome Editing.The CRISPR journal · 2019Article
- Attitudes of Members of Genetics Professional Societies Toward Human Gene Editing.The CRISPR journal · 2019Article
- Fearful old world? A commentary on the Second International Summit on human genome editing.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2019Article
- Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It?The CRISPR journal · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.
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.