Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38353891›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2024

Public participation in human genome editing research governance: what do scientists think?

Margaret Waltz, Michael A Flatt, Eric T Juengst, John M Conley, R Jean Cadigan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Margaret WaltzDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 South Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. margaret_waltz@med.unc.edu.
Michael A FlattDepartment of Sociology, Cuyahoga Community College, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Eric T JuengstDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 South Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
John M ConleyUniversity of North Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
R Jean CadiganDepartment of Social Medicine and Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 South Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.

Funding

Incidental Enhancement: Addressing a Neglected Policy Issue in Human Genome EditingR01HG010661 · NHGRI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CADIGAN, ROSEMARY JEAN · 2020 to 2023
$3.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010661
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within the numerous policy and governance recommendations for human genome editing research, anticipatory public engagement seems universally agreed upon as a vital endeavor. Yet it is unclear whether and how scientists whose research involves genome editing see value in engaging the public in discussions of genome editing research governance. To address this question, we interviewed 81 international scientists who use genome editing in their research. The views of our scientist interviewees about public engagement occupied a broad spectrum from enthusiastic support to strong skepticism. But most scientists' views landed somewhere in the middle, seeing public engagement as merely informing the public about the science of genome editing. We argue that such a stance reflects the traditional "knowledge-deficit model." Beyond addressing the operational difficulties of public engagement, many scientists' adherence to the deficit model is a deeper barrier that needs to be addressed if public engagement is to occur and be successful.

Indexed as

GovernanceHuman genome editingInterviewsPublic engagement

Identifiers

PMID38353891
PMCPMC11217205

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.