Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34033008›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2021

Can 'eugenics' be defended?

Walter Veit, Jonathan Anomaly, Nicholas Agar, Peter Singer, Diana S Fleischman, Francesca Minerva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Eugenics offended.Monash bioethics review · 2021
    Article
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

6 authors.

Walter VeitUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. wrwveit@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7701-8995
Jonathan AnomalyUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Nicholas AgarVictoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Peter SingerPrinceton University, Princeton, USA.
Diana S FleischmanUniversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Francesca MinervaUniversity of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, bioethical discourse around the topic of 'genetic enhancement' has become increasingly politicized. We fear there is too much focus on the semantic question of whether we should call particular practices and emerging bio-technologies such as CRISPR 'eugenics', rather than the more important question of how we should view them from the perspective of ethics and policy. Here, we address the question of whether 'eugenics' can be defended and how proponents and critics of enhancement should engage with each other.

Indexed as

EugenicsGenetic EnhancementClustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic RepeatsHumansCRISPREmbryo selectionEnhancementEthicsEugenicsGene editingHuman enhancement

Identifiers

PMID34033008
PMCPMC8321981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.