Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35438443›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2022

Walking a Fine Germline: Synthesizing Public Opinion and Legal Precedent to Develop Policy Recommendations for Heritable Gene-Editing.

Shawna Benston

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Shawna BenstonColumbia University, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 840, New York, NY, 10115, USA. shawna.benston@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3584-9656
Riverside Research Institute · US

Funding

Center for Research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP50HG007257 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG007257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene-editing technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9, are internationally ethically fraught. In the United States, policy surrounding gene-editing has yet to be implemented, while the science continues to speed ahead. However, it is not enough that policy be implemented: in order for policy to establish limits for the technology such that benefits are possible while threats are kept at bay, such policy must be ethical. In turn, the ethics of gene-editing is a culturally determined field of inquiry. This piece presents a proposal for a study whose goal is to arrive at ethical policy recommendations for policymakers. To achieve this goal, this study proposes, what needs to be done is, first, to understand the full history and foundation of gene-editing by conducting a thorough legal, bioethical, and policy review for precedent assisted reproductive technologies and genetic reproductive technologies. Following this effort, an empirical study must be conducted involving careful surveys of key stakeholder groups on their knowledge and opinions of gene-editing. Such stakeholder groups must include bioethicists, medical geneticists, and lay persons, including those in the disability community.

Indexed as

Gene EditingPublic OpinionGerm CellsHumansPolicyUnited StatesAssisted reproductive technologiesBioethicsDisabilityELSIEthical legal and social implications of geneticsGene-editingGenethicsGenetic reproductive technologies

Identifiers

PMID35438443
OpenAlexW4224268747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.