ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2018
Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: Background document to the 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stem cell-derived gametes: what to expect when expecting their clinical introduction.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Genetics Matters: Voyaging from the Past into the Future of Humanity and Sustainability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in favour of germline interventions?Bioethics · 2020Article
- Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Genetic overlap between birthweight and adult cardiometabolic diseases has implications for genomic medicine.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
- Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Article
- Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It?The CRISPR journal · 2018Article
- Human germline gene editing. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. 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. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, preclinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g., gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g., safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.
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.