ArticleCureus2022
Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Created, Not Engineered: Analyzing Human Gene Editing from a Catholic Anthropological and Moral Perspective.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- DNA and RNA editing for the therapy of human diseases: current status, challenges, and future prospects.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- From Bench to Bedside: Ethical and Clinical Best Practices for Genome Editing Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Navigating the human gene editing scene and proposing a new governance framework in Africa: from knowledge to policy to action.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Article
- Addressing the challenges of immunogenicity, heterogeneity and tumorigenicity in the clinical translation of human embryonic stem cells.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Review
- CRISPR Genome Editing in Personalized Therapy for Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases: A Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Genome Editing for Fertility: Unlocking the Promise of CRISPR/Cas9 in Addressing Male Infertility - A Narrative Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Review
- Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025Article
- How artificial intelligence can enable personalized mesenchymal stem cell-based therapeutic strategies in systemic lupus erythematosus.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- CRISPR/Cas-edited iPSCs and mesenchymal stem cells: a concise review of their potential in thalassemia therapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Human cognitive enhancement and reprogenetic technologies in Malaysia - A survey study of local Muslim undergraduate students' viewpoints.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Metabolic gene therapy in a canine with pulmonary hypertension secondary to degenerative mitral valve disease.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human genome editing has been increasingly explored to determine if it can be used to eradicate genetic diseases like sickle cell disease, but it has also been surrounded by a wide variety of ethical dilemmas. The purpose of this review was to conduct a scoping review of the ethics of therapeutic human genome editing in terms of philosophy, theology, public perspectives, and research ethics. A systemized search of PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science was conducted. The initial search resulted in 4,445 articles, and after removing 1,750 duplicates and screening the remaining 2,695 articles, 27 final articles were selected for the final analysis. From a philosophical and theological standpoint, therapeutic human genome editing was generally ethically acceptable. Worldwide public perspectives were also in agreement except for the Oceanic region, which disagreed mainly due to the possible effects on future generations. Lastly, human research ethics revealed that women were not always included in informed consent, and that child autonomy needs to be preserved. Further research is needed to determine adverse effects on the mother, fetus, and future generations.
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.