Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33275190›Full record

ReviewMonash bioethics review2020

Emerging moral status issues.

Julian J Koplin, Christopher Gyngell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Monash bioethics review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Organoids: a systematic review of ethical issues.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Artificial womb technology; a scoping review of ethical considerations.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

2 authors.

Julian J KoplinMelbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham St, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. koplinj@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2752-7334
Christopher GyngellBiomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Carlton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

Victoria State Government JK and CG, through their involvement with the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, received funding through from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many controversies in bioethics turn on questions of moral status. Some moral status issues have received extensive bioethical attention, including those raised by abortion, embryo experimentation, and animal research. Beyond these established debates lie a less familiar set of moral status issues, many of which are tied to recent scientific breakthroughs. This review article surveys some key developments that raise moral status issues, including the development of in vitro brains, part-human animals, "synthetic" embryos, and artificial womb technologies. It introduces the papers in this Special Issue, contextualises their contributions to the moral status literature, and highlights some enduring challenges of determining the moral status of novel types of beings.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesMoral StatusAbortion, InducedAnimal ExperimentationArtificial OrgansBioethicsBiotechnologyBrainDissent and DisputesEmbryo ResearchFemaleHumansPregnancyUterusAnimal ethicsCerebral organoidsEctogenesisEmbryo researchMoral status

Identifiers

PMID33275190

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.