ArticleWellcome open research2020
Engagement and social acceptance in genome editing for human benefit: Reflections on research and practice in a global context.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The emerging impact of CRISPR and gene editing on global crop improvement.Transgenic research · 2026Review
- Gene Therapy and Gene Editing: Current Trends and Future Prospects of Molecular Medicine.Current gene therapy · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Genome Editing and Bioinformatics: Addressing Challenges in Genome Editing Implementation and Genome Sequencing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Advancing CRISPR genome editing into gene therapy clinical trials: progress and future prospects.Expert reviews in molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Navigating biosafety regulatory frameworks for genetic engineering in Africa: a focus on genome editing and gene drive technologies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Respecting values and perspectives in biobanking and genetic research governance: Outcomes of a qualitative study in Bengaluru, India.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Engaging publics in biobanking and genetic research governance - a literature review towards informing practice in India.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While there are both practical and ethical reasons for public engagement in science and innovation, real-world detailed examples of engagement practice and the lessons to come from these are still hard to find. This paper showcases three contextually diverse case studies of engagement practice. Case 1 recounts the experiences of a government-funded initiative to involve scientists and policy makers as science communicators for the purpose of engaging the Argentine public on gene editing. Case 2 describes the research methodologies used to elicit diverse stakeholder views in the face of political uncertainty and institutional distrust in India. Finally, case 3 unpacks the tensions and gaps with existing international guidelines for ensuring local voices are respected in community decision-making in Burkina Faso. Each case shares its own compelling rationale for selecting the engagement method chosen and details the challenges encountered along the way. Each case shares its vision for creating legitimate opportunities for broader societal involvement in the planning, conduct and delivery of responsible science. These cases demonstrate the nuances, sensitivities and challenges of engaging with publics and broader stakeholders in discussions about genome editing for human benefit.
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.