ArticleCambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees2019
Regulating Genome Editing: For an Enlightened Democratic Governance.
Article in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Created, Not Engineered: Analyzing Human Gene Editing from a Catholic Anthropological and Moral Perspective.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Gene Therapy and Gene Editing: Current Trends and Future Prospects of Molecular Medicine.Current gene therapy · 2026Review
- Navigating the human gene editing scene and proposing a new governance framework in Africa: from knowledge to policy to action.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Article
- Anticipatory gaps challenge the public governance of heritable human genome editing.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan.Asian bioethics review · 2023Article
- Data challenges for future plant gene editing: expert opinion.Transgenic research · 2021Article
- A virtual deliberative public engagement study on heritable genome editing among South Africans: Study protocol.PloS one · 2021Article
- Human genome editing: how to prevent rogue actors.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Meaning of Ambiguity: A Japanese Survey on Synthetic Biology and Genome Editing.Frontiers in sociology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How should we regulate genome editing in the face of persistent substantive disagreement about the moral status of this technology and its applications? In this paper, we aim to contribute to resolving this question. We first present two diametrically opposed possible approaches to the regulation of genome editing. A first approach, which we refer to as "elitist," is inspired by Joshua Greene's work in moral psychology. It aims to derive at an abstract theoretical level what preferences people would have if they were committed to implementing public policies regulating genome editing in a context of ethical pluralism. The second approach, which we refer to as the democratic approach, defended by Francoise Baylis and Sheila Jasanoff et al., emphasizes the importance of including the public's expressed attitudes in the regulation of genome editing. After pointing out a serious shortcoming with each of these approaches, we propose our own favored approach-the "enlightened democracy" approach-which attempts to combine the strengths of the elitist and democratic approaches while avoiding their weaknesses.
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.