ArticleJournal of medical ethics2019
The 'serious' factor in germline modification.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Defining ethical criteria to guide the expanded use of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS): Lessons about severity from preimplantation genetic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Pooled it
- Considering seriousness in preconception carrier screening: a framework to support policy deliberation.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Beyond severity: utility as a criterion for setting the scope of RGCS.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Editorial: severity in a genomic age.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Negotiating severity behind the scenes: prenatal testing in Germany.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Severity in the genomic age: the significance of lived experience to understandings of severity.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Unpacking the notion of "serious" genetic conditions: towards implementation in reproductive decision-making?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- Blazing the Trail of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening Expanded Use: Healthcare Providers' Perspectives.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Article
- Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations.Human reproduction update · 2024Review
- Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Human germline genome editing is illegal in Canada, but could it be desirable for some members of the rare disease community?Journal of community genetics · 2020Review
- Responsible Translational Pathways for Germline Gene Editing?Current stem cell reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current advances in assisted reproductive technologies aim to promote the health and well-being of future children. They offer the possibility to select embryos with the greatest potential of being born healthy (eg, preimplantation genetic testing) and may someday correct faulty genes responsible for heritable diseases in the embryo (eg, human germline genome modification (HGGM)). Most laws and policy statements surrounding HGGM refer to the notion of 'serious' as a core criterion in determining what genetic diseases should be targeted by these technologies. Yet, this notion remains vague and poorly defined, rendering its application challenging and decision making subjective and arbitrary. By way of background, we begin by briefly presenting two conceptual approaches to 'health' and 'disease': objectivism (ie, based on biological facts) and constructivism (ie, based on human values). The basic challenge under both is sorting out whether and to what extent social and environmental factors have a role in helping to define what qualifies as a 'serious' disease beyond the medical criteria. We then focus on how a human rights framework (eg, right to science and right to the highest attainable health) could integrate the concepts of objectivism and constructivism so as to provide guidance for a more actionable consideration of 'serious'. Ultimately, it could be argued that a human rights framework, by way of its legally binding nature and its globally accepted norms and values, provides a more universal foundation for discussions of the ethical, legal and social implications of emerging or disruptive technologies.
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.