Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34746454›Full record

ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2022

Silences, omissions and oversimplification? The UK debate on mitochondrial donation.

Cathy Herbrand

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2022. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cathy HerbrandDe Montfort University, Leicester, UK.
De Montfort University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drawing on scholarship from ignorance studies, this paper uses the case of the UK debates on mitochondrial donation (2012-2015) to emphasize the importance of deploying an analysis of ignorance that goes beyond medical and safety concerns when scrutinizing debates or campaigns around new reproductive technologies. In contrast to what happened with previous reproductive health treatments or drugs, the potential medical risks of mitochondrial donation were explicitly acknowledged and examined during its public and parliamentary discussions. However, I show, using the concepts of 'acknowledged unknowns' and 'ignored knowns', how the attention drawn to the medical risks contributed to obscuring the assessment of its economic and social impacts by silencing key knowledge regarding the limitations of mitochondrial donation in relation to the potential beneficiaries, the scope of the techniques, their alternatives and their costs. This article therefore calls for more systematic use of an integrated analytical framework of ignorance to be applied in the field of reproductive public policies, paying particular attention not only to the ways that medical risks are addressed, but also to the type of knowledge and disciplines this allows to silence or side-line in the framing and assessment of new biotechnologies.

Indexed as

Ignorance studiesIgnored knownsMitochondrial donationReproductive technologiesThree-parent babyUK biomedical politics

Identifiers

PMID34746454
PMCPMC8555432
OpenAlexW3191415811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.