ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2020
Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos.
Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- TGIF1-mediated corneal fibrosis inhibition: a gene-editing alternative to keratoplasty?Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Gene, genetics and genetic medicines in gastroenterology: Current status and its future.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Searching for a HIV-1 Cure.Theranostics · 2026Review
- Genome Editing for Fertility: Unlocking the Promise of CRISPR/Cas9 in Addressing Male Infertility - A Narrative Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Review
- CRISPR-Cas technologies in neurodegenerative disorders: mechanistic insights, therapeutic potential, and translational challenges.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- The recent genetic modification techniques for improve soil conservation, nutrient uptake and utilization.GM crops & food · 2024Review
- Advancement of animal and poultry nutrition: Harnessing the power of CRISPR-Cas genome editing technology.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2024Article
- Compelling Reasons to Perform Basic and Pre-clinical Research on Germline Genome Editing.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2023Article
- Mapping the 'Ethical' Controversy of Human Heritable Genome Editing: a Multidisciplinary Approach.Asian bioethics review · 2023Article
- Gene therapy to enhance angiogenesis in chronic wounds.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2022Review
- Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Strategies to overcome the main challenges of the use of CRISPR/Cas9 as a replacement for cancer therapy.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
- Motor neuron-derived induced pluripotent stem cells as a drug screening platform for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Organ-on-a-chip technology for the study of the female reproductive system.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021Review
- Current Strategies in Assessment of Nanotoxicity: Alternatives to In Vivo Animal Testing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Researchers views about perceived harms and benefits of gene editing: A study from the MENA region.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Article
- CCR5Δ32 in Brazil: Impacts of a European Genetic Variant on a Highly Admixed Population.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Perspectives, Expectations, and Concerns of European Patient Advocates on Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the potential advantages of clinical germline genome editing (GGE) over currently available methods are limited, the implementation of GGE in the clinic has been proposed and discussed. Ethical issues related to such an application have been extensively debated, meanwhile, seemingly less attention has been paid to ethical implications of studies which would have to be conducted in order to evaluate potential clinical uses of GGE. In this article, we first provide an overview of the debate on potential clinical uses of GGE. Then, we discuss questions and ethical issues related to the studies relevant to evaluation of potential clinical uses of GGE. In particular, we describe the problems related to the acceptable safety threshold, current technical hurdles in human GGE, the destruction of human embryos used in the experiments, involvement of egg donors, and genomic sequencing performed on the samples of the research participants. The technical and ethical problems related to studies on GGE should be acknowledged and carefully considered in the process of deciding to apply technology in such a way that will provide benefits and minimize harms.
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.