ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2023
The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Pooled it
- Public acceptance of genome editing in Saudi Arabia is driven by therapeutic benefit despite limited awareness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- 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
- Harnessing multi-omics and genome-editing technologies for climate-resilient agriculture: bridging AI-driven insights with sustainable crop improvement.Plant molecular biology · 2025Review
- A citizen-centred approach to public engagement on the ethical, legal and societal issues of health technologies.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Anticipatory gaps challenge the public governance of heritable human genome editing.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- The methodological and ethical concerns of genetic studies of same-sex sexual behavior.American journal of human genetics · 2024Review
- Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance.The Hastings Center report · 2024Article
- Public participation in human genome editing research governance: what do scientists think?Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Biosafety, biosecurity, and bioethics.Monash bioethics review · 2024Review
- Identifying Māori perspectives on gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Beyond the traditional distinctions of genome editing: evaluating a vulnerability framework.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Article
- Placing Publics in Public Health Genomics.Public health genomics · 2024Article
- Translational Justice in Human Gene Editing: Bringing End User Engagement and Policy Together.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Unbounding ELSI: The Ongoing Work of Centering Equity and Justice.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Innovating for a Just and Equitable Future in Genomic and Precision Medicine Research.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement."
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.