ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Islamic Perspectives on CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Human Germline Gene Editing: A Preliminary Discussion.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Earth: Recent Advancements in Microgravity Biomedical and Genetic Research in Saudi Arabia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Human cognitive enhancement and reprogenetic technologies in Malaysia - A survey study of local Muslim undergraduate students' viewpoints.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- Playing God? Religious Perspectives on Manipulating the Genome.Journal of religion and health · 2022Article
- Human Germline Gene Editing from Maslahah Perspective: The Case of the World's First Gene Edited Babies.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- CRISPR-Cas9 and He Jiankui's Case: an Islamic Bioethics Review usingAsian bioethics review · 2021Article
- Genetic counseling in the context of Bangladesh: current scenario, challenges, and a framework for genetic service implementation.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Review
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 recent development of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has rekindled the ethical debate concerning human germline modification that has begun decades ago. This inexpensive technology shows tremendous promise in disease prevention strategies, while raising complex ethical concerns about safety and efficacy of the technology, human dignity, tampering with God's creation, and human genetic enhancement. Germline gene editing may result in heritable changes in the human genome, therefore the question of whether it should be allowed requires deep and careful discussion from various perspectives. This paper explores Islamic perspectives on the concerns raised and highlights the ethical principles in Islam that should be taken into consideration when assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/ Cas9-mediated human germline gene editing. As argued in this paper, human germline gene editing would be considered lawful for medical purpose under certain conditions. It should not be applied on humans until the safety and efficacy issues are resolved. Robust ethical guidelines and strict regulations are necessary to preserve human dignity and to prevent premature and misuse of the technology. Maqasid al-shariah's principles of preservation of human life, lineage, and dignity and 'preventing harm takes precedence over securing benefit' are among the guiding principles in assessing the permissibility of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated human germline editing from an Islamic perspective. Further discussions are important to address the controversies as well as to explore the related ethical principles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30830592What 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.