ArticleAsian bioethics review2018
Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An ethical analysis.
Article in Asian bioethics review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Pooled it
- From Gene Function to Precision Intervention: CRISPR/Cas9 and Stem Cell-Based Strategies as Emerging Disease-Modifying Approaches in PMOS.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Created, Not Engineered: Analyzing Human Gene Editing from a Catholic Anthropological and Moral Perspective.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- An interpretable deep learning framework uncovers features governing CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing efficiency.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Molecular Bases of Myopathies and Their Impact on Clinical Practice: Advances and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- An evolutionary genomic perspective on preterm birth, genome editing, and pregnancy in the human species.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Review
- Review
- Review
- Review
- Innovations in Quail Welfare: Integrating Environmental Enrichment, Nutrition and Genetic Advances for Improved Health and Productivity.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Review
- Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Ray of Hope for Infertility.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Harnessing bacterial immunity: CRISPR-Cas system as a versatile tool in combating pathogens and revolutionizing medicine.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Gene therapy and kidney diseases.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2024Review
- Non-Obstructive Azoospermia and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Unveiling the Chances of Success and Possible Consequences for Offspring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Advances and challenges in gene therapy strategies for pediatric cancer: a comprehensive update.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Review
- Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- AttCRISPR: a spacetime interpretable model for prediction of sgRNA on-target activity.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- CRISPRpred(SEQ): a sequence-based method for sgRNA on target activity prediction using traditional machine learning.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the arrival of new methods of genome editing, especially CRISPR/Cas 9, new perspectives on germline interventions have arisen. Supporters of germ line genome editing (GGE) claim that the procedure could be used as a means of disease prevention. As a possible life-saving therapy, it provides benefits that outweigh its risks. Opponents of GGE claim that the medical and societal risks, especially the use of GGE for genetic enhancement, are too high. In our paper, we analyze the risks and benefits of GGE. We show that the medical risk on an individual level might be reduced by further research in the near future so that they may be outweighed by the benefits. We also show that the societal risks of the procedure, i.e. genetic enhancement, are manageable by establishing a regulative framework before the GGE is implemented. Since the effects of modifying genes for the genepool of a given population are extremely difficult to model, the medical risks on the population level might be too high.
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.