Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33405005›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021

Regulating reproductive genetic services: dealing with spiral-shaped processes and techno-scientific imaginaries.

Ido Alon, Rosa Urbanos-Garrido, José Guimón

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Tackling real-world issues in human ARTs-the missing link between stakeholders.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ido AlonDepartment of Development Economics, Research Group on Economics and Management of Innovation, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Idoalon77@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6603-7496
Rosa Urbanos-GarridoDepartment of Applied Economics, Public Economics and Political Economy, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
José GuimónDepartment of Development Economics, Research Group on Economics and Management of Innovation, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe have been inquiring into the diffusion process of reproductive genetic services (RGS) and the viability of geneticization in human reproduction.

methodA 2-round modified-Delphi survey was applied amongst Israeli and Spanish experts to analyze regulatory attitudes and expectations about the future applications of RGS. We argue that an explanation of RGS diffusion based on a 'technology-push' impulse should be complemented by a 'demandpull' approach, which underscores the importance of regulatory frameworks and demand-inducing policies. The diffusion of RGS is advancing in a 'spiralshaped' process where technology acts as a cause and effect simultaneously, modulating social acceptance and redefining the notions of health and responsibility along the way.

resultsWe suggest that there is a 'grey-zone' of RGS regulations regarding four procedures: the use of germline genome modification (GGM) for severe monogenic disorders, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for detection of chromosomal abnormalities, PGT for multifactorial diseases, and PGT with whole-exome screening.

conclusionsAlthough far from the geneticization of human reproduction, our findings suggest that, since techno-scientific imaginaries tend to shape regulations and thus favor the diffusion of RGS, policymakers should pay attention to those procedures by focusing on good practices and equity while providing sound information on potential risks and expected success rates. A broad and inclusive societal debate is critical for overcoming the difficulty of drawing a clear line between medical and non-medical uses of genetic selection and engineering while searching for the right balance between allowing reproductive autonomy and protecting the public interest.

Indexed as

Gene EditingFemaleGenetic TestingGenome, HumanGerm CellsHumansMalePregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisReproductionReproductive Health ServicesReproductive MedicineReproductive Techniques, AssistedAssisted reproductive technologiesDelphiDiffusion of innovationPreimplantation genetic testingRegulating emerging technologiesReproductive genetic services

Identifiers

PMID33405005
PMCPMC7884509
OpenAlexW3120104688

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.