ReviewBiochemia medica2019
Ethics assessment in research proposals adopting CRISPR technology.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Therapy for Glioblastoma: A Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Principles and Applications of CRISPR Toolkit in Virus Manipulation, Diagnosis, and Virus-Host Interactions.Cells · 2022Review
- Post-GDPR survey of data protection officers in research and non-research institutions in Croatia: a cross-sectional study.Biochemia medica · 2021Article
- Applications of CRISPR-Cas9 as an Advanced Genome Editing System in Life Sciences.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Review
- Dialogic gathering of films. Promoting meaningful online interactions during COVID-19 confinement.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- The Challenge of CRISPR-Cas Toward Bioethics.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2020Article
- Comparison of CRISPR Sequences in Archaea and Bacteria with Eukaryotic microRNAs.Avicenna journal of medical biotechnologyArticle
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 rapid and exponential growth of genome editing has posed many challenges for bioethics. This article briefly explains the nature of the technique and the particularly rapid development of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR) technology. The international and, specifically, European-level systems for assessing the ethical issues consequent on these developments are outlined and discussed. The challenges posed by cases in China are summarized to raise concerns about how a more shared, universally consistent appraisal of bioethical issues can be promoted.
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.