ArticleMonash bioethics review2021
Eugenics offended.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary continues an exchange on eugenics in Monash Bioethics Review between (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018), (Wilson in Eugenics Undefended 37:68-75, 2019), and (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021). The eponymous question, "Can 'Eugenics' be Defended?", is multiply ambiguous and does not receive a clear answer from Veit et al.. Despite their stated desire to move beyond mere semantics to matters of substance, Veit et al. concentrate on several uses of the term "eugenics" that pull in opposite directions. I argue, first, that (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021) makes much the same error as does (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018) in characterizing eugenics; second, that the paper misunderstands the relationship between eugenics and enhancement; and third, that it distorts the views expressed in my "Eugenics Undefended".
Indexed as
Identifiers
34913155What 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.