ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019
Gene Editing, the Mystic Threat to Human Dignity.
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 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.
- Why dignity is a troubling concept for AI ethics.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- CRISPR: Beyond the Excitement.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Felicity Boardman.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Human Dignity and Gene Editing: Additional Support for Raposo's Arguments.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- The First Chinese Edited Babies: A Leap of Faith in Science.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2019Article
- Dementia: Unwelcome change has arrived and we are not ready!Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Many arguments have been made against gene editing. This paper addresses the commonly invoked argument that gene editing violates human dignity and is ultimately a subversion of human nature. There are several drawbacks to this argument. Above all, the concept of what human dignity means is unclear. It is not possible to condemn a practice that violates human dignity if we do not know exactly what is being violated. The argument's entire reasoning is thus undermined. Analyses of the arguments involved in this discussion have often led to the conclusion that gene editing contravenes the principle of genetic identity (genetic immutability) thereby subverting a requisite of human dignity and ultimately threatening human nature. This paper refutes these arguments and shows that any opposition to gene editing cannot rely on the human dignity argument.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30887186What 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.