ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Back to Basics: Application of the Principles of Bioethics to Heritable Genome Interventions.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Theological and Ethical Perspectives on Gene Editing and the Sanctity of Life: Rare Genetic Diseases in the Philippines as a Model.Journal of religion and health · 2025Review
- Points to consider in the development of national human genome editing policy.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Review
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: technical and ethical barriers to clinical application.Human genetics · 2022Review
- Addressing Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment in Public Advocacy and Policy Making on CRISPR/Cas-Based Human Genome Editing.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- Genome Editing among Bioethics and Regulatory Practices.Biomolecules · 2021Review
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
Prior to their announcement of the birth of gene-edited twins in China, Dr. He Jiankui and colleagues published a set of draft ethical principles for discussing the legal, social, and ethical aspects of heritable genome interventions. Within this document, He and colleagues made it clear that their goal with these principles was to "clarify for the public the clinical future of early-in-life genetic surgeries" or heritable genome editing. In light of He's widely criticized gene editing experiments it is of interest to place these draft principles in the larger ethical debate surrounding heritable genome editing. Here we examine the principles proposed by He and colleagues through the lens of Beauchamp and Childress' Principles of Biomedical Ethics. We also analyze the stated goal that the "clinical future" of heritable genome editing was clarified by He and colleagues' proposed principles. Finally, we highlight what might be done to help prevent individual actors from pushing forward ahead of broad societal consensus on heritable genome 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.