Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30591987›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019

Accounting for the Moral Significance of Technology: Revisiting the Case of Non-Medical Sex Selection.

Olya Kudina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Olya KudinaPhilosophy Department, University of Twente, Cubicus C315, Drienerlolaan 5, 7500AE, Enschede, The Netherlands. olga.kudina@utwente.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5374-1687

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 277-20-006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article explores the moral significance of technology, reviewing a microfluidic chip for sperm sorting and its use for non-medical sex selection. I explore how a specific material setting of this new iteration of pre-pregnancy sex selection technology-with a promised low cost, non-invasive nature and possibility to use at home-fosters new and exacerbates existing ethical concerns. I compare this new technology with the existing sex selection methods of sperm sorting and Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis. Current ethical and political debates on emerging technologies predominantly focus on the quantifiable risk-and-benefit logic that invites an unequivocal "either-or" decision on their future and misses the contextual ethical impact of technology. The article aims to deepen the discussion on sex selection and supplement it with the analysis of the new technology's ethical potential to alter human practices, perceptions and the evaluative concepts with which we approach it. I suggest that the technological mediation approach (Verbeek, 2005, 2011) can be useful to ethically contextualize technologies and highlight the value of such considerations for the informed deliberation regarding their use, design and governance.

Indexed as

MoralsBiomedical TechnologyFemaleHumansLab-On-A-Chip DevicesMaleReproductive Techniques, AssistedSex PreselectionSpermatozoaEthics of technologyMoral mediationSex selectionTechnological mediation

Identifiers

PMID30591987
PMCPMC6474848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.