ArticlePLoS biology2019
Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong.
Article in PLoS biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA-editing 'pencils' probe early human development.Nature · 2026Article
- Advances in CRISPR Base Editing: From Molecular Evolution to Therapeutic Applications in Genomic Medicine.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Mapping the therapeutic landscape of CRISPR-Cas9 for combating age-related diseases.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Article
- AeLife · 2024Article
- Ethical and social insights into synthetic biology: predicting research fronts in the post-COVID-19 era.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- States of Uncertainty, Risk-Benefit Assessment and Early Clinical Research: A Conceptual Investigation.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Genetics Matters: Voyaging from the Past into the Future of Humanity and Sustainability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- The Public Perception of the #GeneEditedBabies Event Across Multiple Social Media Platforms: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Observational
- HIV-1 and human genetic variation.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2021Review
- 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
- Review
- Gene Editing in Pluripotent Stem Cells and Their Derived Organoids.Stem cells international · 2021Review
- The genome editing revolution: review.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2020Review
- Beyond HIV infection: Neglected and varied impacts of CCR5 and CCR5Δ32 on viral diseases.Virus research · 2020Review
- An overview of development in gene therapeutics in China.Gene therapy · 2020Review
- Ethical Challenges in Human Space Missions: A Space Refuge, Scientific Value, and Human Gene Editing for Space.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- The Promise of Emergent Nanobiotechnologies for In Vivo Applications and Implications for Safety and Security.Health securityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the second World Summit of Human Gene Editing, Jiankui He presented the gene-editing project that led to the birth of two baby girls with man-made C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) mutations. This extremely irresponsible behavior violated the ethical consensus of scientists all over the world. His presentation revealed a troubling lack not only of basic medical ethics but also of the requisite understanding of genetics and gene editing. Here, we review the rationale and design of his experiment along with the presented data, and provide our scientific criticism of this misconduct.
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.