ArticleBioethics2020
Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in favour of germline interventions?
Article in Bioethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technologized Reproduction in Space: A Space-Bioethical Case for Assisted Procreation.Bioethics · 2026Article
- An exploration of the perspectives of Dutch adults experiencing a genetic condition on human germline gene editing.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Reproductive options and genetic testing for patients with an inherited cardiac disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2025Review
- CRISPR-Cas technologies in neurodegenerative disorders: mechanistic insights, therapeutic potential, and translational challenges.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- A critical view on using "life not worth living" in the bioethics of assisted reproduction.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
- Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: first steps and future directions.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- An Update on the Application of CRISPR Technology in Clinical Practice.Molecular biotechnology · 2024Review
- Beyond the traditional distinctions of genome editing: evaluating a vulnerability framework.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Article
- Education of the clinical embryology laboratory professional: development of a novel program delivered in a laboratory medicine department.F&S reports · 2023Article
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Evaluating standards for 'serious' disease for preimplantation genetic testing: a multi-case study on regulatory frameworks in Japan, the UK, and Western Australia.Human genomics · 2022Article
- Affecting future individuals: Why and when germline genome editing entails a greater moral obligation towards progeny.Bioethics · 2021Article
- Review
- Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report onThe CRISPR journal · 2020Article
- Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Felicity Boardman.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- Gene editing and CRISPR in the clinic: current and future perspectives.Bioscience reports · 2020Review
- Molecular cytogenetic characterization of small supernumerary marker 15 in infertile male: A case report.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Germline genome editing versus preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Is there a case in favour of germline interventions?Bioethics · 2020Article
- Responsible Translational Pathways for Germline Gene Editing?Current stem cell reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR is widely considered to be a disruptive technology. However, when it comes to the most controversial topic, germline genome editing (GGE), there is no consensus on whether this technology has any substantial advantages over existing procedures such as embryo selection after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Answering this question, however, is crucial for evaluating whether the pursuit of further research and development on GGE is justified. This paper explores the question from both a clinical and a moral viewpoint, namely whether GGE has any advantages over existing technologies of selective reproduction and whether GGE could complement or even replace them. In a first step, I review an argument of extended applicability. The paper confirms that there are some scenarios in which only germline intervention allows couples to have (biologically related) healthy offspring, because selection will not avoid disease. In a second step, I examine possible moral arguments in favour of genetic modification, namely that GGE could save some embryos and that GGE would provide certain benefits for a future person that PGD does not. Both arguments for GGE have limitations. With regard to the extended applicability of GGE, however, a weak case in favour of GGE should still be made.
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.