Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31490459›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2018

Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing. Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.

Guido de Wert, Björn Heindryckx, Guido Pennings, Angus Clarke, Ursula Eichenlaub-Ritter, Carla G van El, Francesca Forzano, Mariëtte Goddijn, Heidi C Howard, Dragica Radojkovic and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Science and Social Media.Stem cells translational medicine · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Guido de WertDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Institutes GROW and CAPHRI, Fac. of Health, Medicine and the Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, The Netherlands.
Björn HeindryckxDepartment for Reproductive Medicine, Ghent-Fertility and Stem cell Team (G-FaST), Ghent University Hospital, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Gent, Belgium.
Guido PenningsDepartment of Philosophy and Moral Science, Bioethics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Angus ClarkeInstitute of Medical Genetics, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN, Wales, UK.
Ursula Eichenlaub-RitterInstitute of Gene Technology/Microbiology, Faculty of Biology, University of Bielefeld, Postfach 10 01 31, Bielefeld D-33501 Germany.
Carla G van ElDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics, and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Francesca ForzanoClinical Genetics Department, Guy's Hospital, 7th Floor Borough Wing, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK.
Mariëtte GoddijnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Heidi C HowardCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics; Uppsala University, Box564, SE-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden.
Dragica RadojkovicLaboratory for Molecular Biology, Institute of Molecular Genetics and Genetic Engineering, University of Belgrade, PO Box 23, 11010 Belgrade, Serbia.
Emmanuelle Rial-SebbagEmmanuelle Rial-Sebbag, UMR 1027, Inserm, Université de Toulouse-Université Paul Sabatier-Toulouse III, Allées Jules Guesdes 37, 31073 Toulouse Cedex, France.
Wybo DondorpDepartment of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Institutes GROW and CAPHRI, Fac. of Health, Medicine and the Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, The Netherlands.
Basil C Tarlatzis1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 9 Agias Sofias Str., 546 23 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Martina C CornelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics, and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, pre-clinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g. gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g. safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.

Indexed as

ESHGESHREethicsgermline gene editinghuman germline gene editinglegislationprofessional policyresponsible innovation

Identifiers

PMID31490459
PMCPMC6276657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.