ArticleBMC medical ethics2020
Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Embryonic and Postnatal Gene Therapy Approaches for GJB2-Related Deafness: A Scoping Review.Audiology research · 2026Review
- Intergenerational healthcare ethics: considering conceptualizations of generations and their collective and temporal dimensions.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Molecular Bases of Myopathies and Their Impact on Clinical Practice: Advances and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Genome editing between wonder and rejection.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Alveolar Epithelial Cell Dysfunction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Mechanistic Insights and Targeted Interventions.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Ray of Hope for Infertility.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Review
- Advancements in pre-clinical development of gene editing-based therapies to treat inherited retinal diseases.Vision research · 2023Article
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- 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
- Review
- Novel CRISPR-Cas Systems: An Updated Review of the Current Achievements, Applications, and Future Research Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- A CRISPR response to pandemics?: Exploring the ethics of genetically engineering the human immune system.EMBO reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-associated (CRISPR-Cas) technology may allow for efficient and highly targeted gene editing in single-cell embryos. This possibility brings human germline editing into the focus of ethical and legal debates again. MAIN BODY: Against this background, we explore essential ethical and legal questions of interventions into the human germline by means of CRISPR-Cas: How should issues of risk and uncertainty be handled? What responsibilities arise regarding future generations? Under which conditions can germline editing measures be therapeutically legitimized? For this purpose, we refer to a scenario anticipating potential further development in CRISPR-Cas technology implying improved accuracy and exclusion of germline transmission to future generations. We show that, if certain concepts regarding germline editing are clarified, under such conditions a categorical prohibition of one-generation germline editing of single-cell embryos appears not to be ethically or legally justifiable.
conclusionThese findings are important prerequisites for the international debate on the ethical and legal justification of germline interventions in the human embryo as well as for the harmonization of international legal standards.
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.