ReviewAnnual review of medicine2019
Ethics of Human Genome Editing.
Review in Annual review of medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dutch Christian Faith Leaders Deliberating Human Germline Gene Editing: A Qualitative Study.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- From Gene Function to Precision Intervention: CRISPR/Cas9 and Stem Cell-Based Strategies as Emerging Disease-Modifying Approaches in PMOS.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Review
- CRISPR/Cas‑based epigenome editing for osteogenic lineage commitment.Cell and tissue research · 2026Review
- Exploring the role of CRISPR in advancing space biotechnology: challenges and solutions for human survival beyond earth.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
- Article
- An exploration of the perspectives of Dutch adults experiencing a genetic condition on human germline gene editing.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Gene Therapy Approaches for Atherosclerosis Focusing on Targeting Lipid Metabolism and Inflammation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Prenatal gene editing for neurodevelopmental diseases: Ethical considerations.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: the moral judgement of the lay public.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Stem cell and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology in Alzheimer's disease therapy: from basic research to clinical innovation.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- From bench to bedside: cutting-edge applications of base editing and prime editing in precision medicine.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Advancing the Battle against Cystic Fibrosis: Stem Cell and Gene Therapy Insights.Current medical science · 2024Review
- CRISPR technology in human diseases.MedComm · 2024Review
- Glucocorticoid receptor-dependent therapeutic efficacy of tauroursodeoxycholic acid in preclinical models of spinocerebellar ataxia type 3.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2024Article
- Survey of attitude to human genome modification in Nigeria.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Breaking genetic shackles: The advance of base editing in genetic disorder treatment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- A bibliometric analysis of gene editing and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (from 2004 to 2024).Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Modular Ontologies for Genetically Modified People and their Bioethical Implications.Nanoethics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in human genome editing, in particular the development of the clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 method, have led to increasing concerns about the ethics of editing the human genome. In response, the US National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine constituted a multidisciplinary, international committee to review the current status and make recommendations. I was a member of that committee, and the core of this review reflects the committee's conclusions. The committee's report, issued in February 2017, recommends the application of current ethical and regulatory standards for gene therapy to somatic (nonheritable) human genome editing. It also recommends allowing experimental germline genome editing to proceed if ( a) it is restricted to preventing transmission of a serious disease or condition, ( b) the edit is a modification to a common DNA sequence known not to be associated with disease, and ( c) the research is conducted under a stringent set of ethical and regulatory requirements. Crossing the so-called red line of germline genome editing raises important bioethical issues, most importantly, serious concern about the potential negative impact on individuals with disabilities. This review highlights some of the major ethical considerations in human genome editing in light of the report's recommendations.
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.