Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32221842›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2020

Gene editing and disabled people: a response to Felicity Boardman.

Iñigo de Miguel Beriain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Iñigo de Miguel BeriainChair in Law and the Human Genome Research Group, Department of Public Law, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Barrio Sarriena s/n, Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain. inigo.demiguelb@ehu.eus.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2650-5280

Funding

Eusko Jaurlaritza Ayudas a Grupos de Investigación IT-1066-16Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 788039
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Is the germline gene editing (GEE) of embryos with disabling conditions a moral obligation? According to a recent editorial by F. Broadmann, there are strong reasons to hold the opposite, since "such a focus on the benefit to individual embryos is to overlook the broader societal changes that genome editing will signal, as well as the potential negative impacts on existing persons with genetic conditions". This paper is aimed at rebuking these arguments by invoking the human dignity principle.

Identifiers

PMID32221842
PMCPMC7295876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.