ArticleThe CRISPR journal2021
The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.
Article in The CRISPR journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinguishing social and medical traits: perspectives of scientists using polygenic scores.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Public acceptance of genome editing in Saudi Arabia is driven by therapeutic benefit despite limited awareness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025Article
- Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- The roadmap of bioeconomy in China.Engineering biology · 2022Review
- Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.Human gene therapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.
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.