ArticleBiology of reproduction2022
Responsible governance of human germline genome editing in China†.
Article in Biology of reproduction, 2022. 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.
- Targeting mtDNA to Modulate Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Neurodegenerative Diseases.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Progress in stem cell-based embryo models and their applications in developmental biology and biomedicine.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2026Review
- Application of Gene Editing Technology Based on Targeted Delivery Materials in TNBC.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Biosafety considerations triggered by genome-editing technologies.Biosafety and health · 2025Review
- CRISPR-Cas technologies in neurodegenerative disorders: mechanistic insights, therapeutic potential, and translational challenges.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- A sustainable balance between innovation and risk: How the "right to science" affects China's medical biotechnology regulatory policy.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan.Asian bioethics review · 2023Article
- Analysis of ethics dumping and proposed solutions in the field of biomedical research in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
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
Considerable improvements have been made to gene editing technology, which has been increasingly applied to research involving humans. Nevertheless, human heritable germline genome editing is associated with a series of potential ethical, legal, and social risks, which have generated major controversies and discussions worldwide, especially after the "gene-edited babies" incident. Influenced by this incident, China has realized the importance of ethical governance in the field of life science and technology, has accelerated legislative and policy efforts in this field, and has gradually moved toward the direction of "precautionary" ethical governance. Black letter analysis, big data public opinion analysis, and other research methods are used in this paper. This paper explores the scientific background, ethical debates, and latest developments regarding China's regulatory framework for human germline gene editing after the "gene-edited babies" controversy and provides several recommendations on the future governance system of human germline gene editing in China. This paper argues that in recent years, the ethics governance of germline genome editing in China has been accelerated and great changes have been made. However, the regulatory system for germline genome editing requires further improvement in three aspects: coordination of legislation and agencies, establishment of an ethics review system at high levels, and public participation and education.
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.