ArticleJournal of medical ethics2019
Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2019. 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.
- Review
- Discussions on Human Enhancement Meet Science: A Quantitative Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Gene Editing: Developments, Ethical Considerations, and Future Directions.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2025Article
- An ethical framework for human genomic enhancement in China.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- A critical view on using "life not worth living" in the bioethics of assisted reproduction.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
- Modular Ontologies for Genetically Modified People and their Bioethical Implications.Nanoethics · 2024Article
- Precision Genome Editing Techniques in Gene Therapy: Current State and Future Prospects.Current gene therapy · 2024Review
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Comparison of Metabolites and Gut Microbes between Patients with Ulcerative Colitis and Healthy Individuals for an Integrative Medicine Approach to Ulcerative Colitis-A Pilot Observational Clinical Study (STROBE Compliant).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Review
- Ethical Challenges in Human Space Missions: A Space Refuge, Scientific Value, and Human Gene Editing for Space.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in favour of germline interventions?Bioethics · 2020Article
- Future Preventive Gene Therapy of Polygenic Diseases from a Population Genetics Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Commentary on 'Moral reasons to edit the human genome': this is not the moral imperative we are looking for.Journal of medical ethics · 2019Article
- The 'serious' factor in germline modification.Journal of medical ethics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In July 2018, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics released its long-awaited report on heritable genome editing (HGE). The Nuffield report was notable for finding that HGE could be morally permissible, even in cases of human enhancement. In this paper, we summarise the findings of the Nuffield Council report, critically examine the guiding principles they endorse and suggest ways in which the guiding principles could be strengthened. While we support the approach taken by the Nuffield Council, we argue that detailed consideration of the moral implications of genome editing yields much stronger conclusions than they draw. Rather than being merely 'morally permissible', many instances of genome editing will be moral imperatives.
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.