ArticleFrontiers in genetics2023
Regulating human genomic research in Africa: why a human rights approach is a more promising conceptual framework than genomic sovereignty.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward the establishment of best practice guidelines for human research in Genomic Medicine in Brazil.Genetics and molecular biology · 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
- When genomics meets geopolitics.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2026Article
- Strengthening ethical oversight in genomics and biobanking: a retrospective analysis of research practices in Zimbabwe.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations in genomic research.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Review
- Open science and human genetic data: recommendations on South Africa'sFrontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Editorial: Toward a better understanding and application of benefit sharing in genomic and global health research.Frontiers in genetics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article revisits the debate on the regulation of human genomic research, with a focus on Africa. The article comprehensively examines the concept of genomic sovereignty, which was invoked mainly in the global South as a conceptual framework for state regulation of human genomic research. It demonstrates that genomic sovereignty has no utility value in human genomic research as it violates the rights of individuals and researchers. By analysing Mexico's regulatory approach based on genomic sovereignty and a divergent regulatory approach, viz Finland's human genomic research framework, we show that a human rights approach is more promising as it aligns with the state obligations under the right of everyone to participate in and benefit from scientific progress and its applications in international human rights law. We conclude by recommending that African states should anchor regulation of human genomic research on a human rights framework based on the right to science.
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.