ArticleBioethics2020
Germline gene editing and the precautionary principle.
Article in Bioethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Curative Therapies for Hemophilias and Hemoglobinopathies in Adults: Immune, Gene, and Stem Cell Approaches in a Global Context.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025Article
- An ethical framework for human genomic enhancement in China.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- A comparative study on the governance approaches for biotechnological risks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Eight Strategies to Engineer Acceptance of Human Germline Modifications.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- Human Germline Gene Editing from Maslahah Perspective: The Case of the World's First Gene Edited Babies.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- COVID-19 in the public housing towers of Melbourne: upholding social justice when invoking precaution.Australian and New Zealand journal of public health · 2020Article
- Germline gene editing and the precautionary principle.Bioethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The precautionary principle aims to influence decision-making in contexts where some activity poses uncertain but potentially grave threats. This perfectly describes the controversy surrounding germline gene editing. This article considers whether the precautionary principle should influence how we weigh the risks and benefits of human germline interventions, focusing especially on the possible threats to the health of future generations. We distinguish between several existing forms of the precautionary principle, assess their plausibility and consider their implications for the ethics of germline modification. We also offer a novel form of the precautionary principle: the sufficientarian precautionary principle. Some plausible versions of the precautionary principle recommend placing somewhat greater weight on avoiding threats to future generations than on achieving short-term benefits. However, no plausible versions of the precautionary principle entail that we should outright reject the use germline gene editing in human reproduction and some, such as the sufficientarian version, might endorse its use.
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.