ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019
Will CRISPR Germline Engineering Close the Door to an Open Future?
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intergenerational healthcare ethics: considering conceptualizations of generations and their collective and temporal dimensions.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- CRISPR-Cas technologies in neurodegenerative disorders: mechanistic insights, therapeutic potential, and translational challenges.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: first steps and future directions.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- Toward Anticipatory Governance of Human Genome Editing: A Critical Review of Scholarly Governance Discourse.Journal of responsible innovation · 2021Article
- Can reproductive genetic manipulation save lives?Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Affected Genome Editing Crops: The Consequences of Genome-Edited Babies in China.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Islamic Perspectives on CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Human Germline Gene Editing: A Preliminary Discussion.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The bioethical principle of autonomy is problematic regarding the future of the embryo who lacks the ability to self-advocate but will develop this defining human capacity in time. Recent experiments explore the use of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 for germline engineering in the embryo, which alters future generations. The embryo's inability to express an autonomous decision is an obvious bioethical challenge of germline engineering. The philosopher Joel Feinberg acknowledged that autonomy is developing in children. He advocated that to reserve this future autonomy, parents should be guided to make ethical decisions that provide children with open futures. Here, Feinberg's 1980 open future theory is extended to the human embryo in the context of CRISPR germline engineering. Although the embryo does not possess the autonomous decision-making capacity at the time of germline engineering, the parental decision to permanently change the unique genetic fabric of the embryo and subsequent generations disregards future autonomy. Therefore, germline engineering in many instances is objectionable considering Feinberg's open future theory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30357560What 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.