Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37735670›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2023

Researching the future: scenarios to explore the future of human genome editing.

Cynthia Selin, Lauren Lambert, Stephanie Morain, John P Nelson, Dorit Barlevy, Mahmud Farooque, Haley Manley, Christopher T Scott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Bridging the Gap: Scenario Planning for Science and Technology in Breast Cancer.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Alzheimer's Disease: A Suitable Case for Treatment with Precision Medicine?Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Cynthia SelinSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University, PO Box 876002, 85287-6002, Tempe, AZ, USA. cynthia.selin@asu.edu.
Lauren LambertSchool of Sustainability at Arizona State University, 4th floor, Walton Center for Planetary Health, 85281, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Stephanie MorainBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, 1809 Ashland Ave, 21212, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John P NelsonSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 685 Cherry St., Suite 107, 30332, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dorit BarlevyCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Suite 310D, 77030, Houston, TX, USA.
Mahmud FarooqueConsortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, 1800 I Street, 20006, Washington, DC, USA.
Haley ManleyCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Suite 310D, 77030, Houston, TX, USA.
Christopher T ScottCenter for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Suite 310D, 77030, Houston, TX, USA.

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

backgroundForward-looking, democratically oriented governance is needed to ensure that human genome editing serves rather than undercuts public values. Scientific, policy, and ethics communities have recognized this necessity but have demonstrated limited understanding of how to fulfill it. The field of bioethics has long attempted to grapple with the unintended consequences of emerging technologies, but too often such foresight has lacked adequate scientific grounding, overemphasized regulation to the exclusion of examining underlying values, and failed to adequately engage the public.

methodsThis research investigates the application of scenario planning, a tool developed in the high-stakes, uncertainty-ridden world of corporate strategy, for the equally high-stakes and uncertain world of the governance of emerging technologies. The scenario planning methodology is non-predictive, looking instead at a spread of plausible futures which diverge in their implications for different communities' needs, cares, and desires.

resultsIn this article we share how the scenario development process can further understandings of the complex and dynamic systems which generate and shape new biomedical technologies and provide opportunities to re-examine and re-think questions of governance, ethics and values. We detail the results of a year-long scenario planning study that engaged experts from the biological sciences, bioethics, social sciences, law, policy, private industry, and civic organizations to articulate alternative futures of human genome editing.

conclusionsThrough sharing and critiquing our methodological approach and results of this study, we advance understandings of anticipatory methods deployed in bioethics, demonstrating how this approach provides unique insights and helps to derive better research questions and policy strategies.

Indexed as

BioethicsGene EditingGenome, HumanHumansPolicySocial SciencesAnticipationBioethicsGovernanceHuman genome editingScenario planning

Identifiers

PMID37735670
PMCPMC10512597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.