Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37484876›Full record

ArticleFutures2023

Seven open questions in the futures of human genome editing.

John P Nelson, Cynthia L Selin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Futures, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

John P NelsonSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, 1120 South Cady Mall, Tempe, Arizona 85287-5603.ORCID 0000-0002-3010-2046
Cynthia L SelinSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society/Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State University, 1120 South Cady Mall, Tempe, Arizona 85287-5603.

Funding

Self-governance in the Human Genome Editing Era: Can Science Rise to the Challenge?R01HG010332 · NHGRI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER THOMAS, SELIN, CYNTHIA · 2019 to 2021
$1.9M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010332
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scholarly discussion around the governance of human genome editing (HGE) recognizes that development and application of HGE techniques could result in unexpected societal outcomes. However, it contains few to no methodological models for how to anticipate, prepare for, or shape such outcomes. This article presents early-stage results from research guided by anticipatory governance, a framework for broad expert and public consideration of innovation processes and purposes. We present and discuss key themes emerging from a set of future-oriented interviews with genome editing practitioners and experts, designed to inform broadly scoped deliberations about plausible futures of HGE. We articulate our results as seven "open questions," the answers to which will be important components of HGE's eventual shape and outcomes. Some themes are perennial in studies of science and society, and others are more novel to HGE. Each helps to reframe HGE beyond a simple comparison of risk and benefit. Such reframing opens up new and important terrain for discussion among policymakers, academics, scientists, and publics. We suggest that discussion framed around broad and reflexive questions like those presented here will help governance efforts to better acknowledge and flexibly respond to the uncertainty and complexities of HGE developments.

Indexed as

anticipationCRISPRforesightgovernancehuman genome editingresponsible innovation

Identifiers

PMID37484876
PMCPMC10358607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.