ArticleThe CRISPR journal2019
Attitudes of Members of Genetics Professional Societies Toward Human Gene Editing.
Article in The CRISPR journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Pooled it
- Which religious and personal characteristics predict attitudes toward gene editing? Findings from a survey of 4,939 adults in the U.S.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Distinguishing social and medical traits: perspectives of scientists using polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Public acceptance of genome editing in Saudi Arabia is driven by therapeutic benefit despite limited awareness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025Article
- Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Survey of attitude to human genome modification in Nigeria.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Human Heritable Genome Editing and its Governance: Views of Scientists and Governance Professionals.New genetics and society · 2024Article
- Acceptance of genetic editing and of whole genome sequencing of human embryos by patients with infertility before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.Reproductive biomedicine online · 2023Article
- Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.Human gene therapy · 2022Article
- The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.The CRISPR journal · 2021Article
- Students' attitudes towards somatic genome editing versus genome editing of the germline using an example of familial leukemia.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public.Journal of human genetics · 2020Article
- Perspectives of Sickle Cell Disease Stakeholders on Heritable Genome Editing.The CRISPR journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing (
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.