ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021
What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 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
- Bridging functional bionanomaterials and the clinic: strategic communication as a translational enabler.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- From designer babies to edited food: comparing public attitudes toward CRISPR technology and gene editing in Japan and the United States.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Understanding the public's intention to adopt CRISPR-Cas9: the effect of beliefs, knowledge, and innovativeness.Human genetics · 2026Article
- How Gene Therapy Research Has Evolved and the Future of Oversight.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2026Article
- The mutualistic symbiosis of public and scientific attention in science communication.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An agenda for science communication research and practice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Our changing information ecosystem for science and why it matters for effective science communication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- How participation in deliberative engagement affects awareness of, and attitudes towards, genomics research and data sharing: evidence from rural Ghana.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Biosafety considerations triggered by genome-editing technologies.Biosafety and health · 2025Review
- Challenges in Paediatric Xenotransplantation: Ethical Components Requiring Distinct Attention in Children and Obligations to Patients and Society.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2025Article
- Identifying enabling strategies for effective public dialogue in human embryo research.Stem cell reports · 2025Article
- Anticipatory gaps challenge the public governance of heritable human genome editing.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025Article
- Problematic use of sustainability claims in recent scientific literature on crop gene technologies: toward improving practices and communication.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Review
- Race and gender biases persist in public perceptions of scientists' credibility.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Questions and Consequences of Omics in Genetically Engineered Crop Regulation.Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Cognitive, affective, and behavioral engagement with science news predicted by the use of accessibility strategies in science-minded and general audiences.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- University scientists' willingness to participate in public engagement: A concept explication.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in gene editing technologies for human, plant, and animal applications have led to calls from bench and social scientists, as well as a wide variety of societal stakeholders, for broad public engagement in the decision-making about these new technologies. Unfortunately, there is limited understanding among the groups calling for public engagement on CRISPR and other emerging technologies about 1) the goals of this engagement, 2) the modes of engagement and what we know from systematic social scientific evaluations about their effectiveness, and 3) how to connect the products of these engagement exercises to societal decision or policy making. Addressing all three areas, we systematize common goals, principles, and modalities of public engagement. We evaluate empirically the likely successes of various modalities. Finally, we outline three pathways forward that deserve close attention from the scientific community as we navigate the world of Life 2.0.
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.