Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37486523›Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2023

The Gene-Edited Babies Controversy: Reactions in the Scientific Community, Social Media, and the Press.

Morgan Meyer, Frédéric Vergnaud

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Morgan MeyerCentre for the Sociology of Innovation, Mines Paris (Paris Sciences & Lettres, CNRS), Paris, France. morgan.meyer@minesparis.psl.eu.
Frédéric VergnaudCentre for the Sociology of Innovation, Mines Paris (Paris Sciences & Lettres, CNRS), Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This chapter analyzes how the gene-edited babies controversy sparked by He Jiankiu has unfolded in three spheres: the scientific community, the press, and social media. Across these spheres, there is a multilayered debate: scientific and technical aspects are discussed, as much as legal frameworks, ethics, responsibilities, politics, and social issues. But beyond these similarities, there are three notable differences. The first concerns (geo)politics. At the 2018 international summit on human gene editing, we observe efforts of self-regulation and demarcation to protect the moral and epistemic authority of the scientific community and to critique - and eventually "excommunicate" - He Jiankui. While the 2018 summit drew a clear line between "good science" and "bad science," in the press, the dichotomy is rather expressed in terms of "good countries" versus "bad countries" regarding their ethics and regulation (a dichotomy much less visible in social media). The second difference concerns emotions and affect. Despite the scientific community's strong condemnation of He Jiankui, it nevertheless expressed its criticisms in an unemotional and factual way. In the press and social media, however, various emotions are visible - fear, anger, pride, hope, rejoicing, disgust, and shame - and the discussion is more dramatic. Third, the use of positive terms is notable: while virtually absent in the scientific sphere and the press, there are positive assessments in social media.

Indexed as

Gene EditingSocial MediaAngerEmotionsHumansMorals

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.