Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38550949›Full record

ReviewCambridge prisms. Precision medicine2023

Points to consider in the development of national human genome editing policy.

Dianne Nicol, Simon Niemeyer, Rebecca Paxton, Christopher Rudge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine, 2023. 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

4 authors.

Dianne NicolCentre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6553-2839
Simon NiemeyerCentre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Rebecca PaxtonFood Values Research Group, Faculty of Arts, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Christopher RudgeCentre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and other genome editing technologies have the potential to transform the lives of people affected by genetic disorders for the better. However, it is widely recognised that they also raise large ethical and policy questions. The focus of this article is on how national genome editing policy might be developed in ways that give proper recognition to these big questions. The article first considers some of the regulatory challenges involved in dealing these big ethical and social questions, and also economic issues. It then reviews the outcomes of a series of major reports on genome editing from international expert bodies, with a particular focus on the work of the World Health Organization's expert committee on genome editing. The article then summarises five policy themes that have emerged from this review of the international reports together with a review of other literature, and the authors' engagement with members of the Australian public and with a wide range of experts across multiple disciplines. Each theme is accompanied by one to three pointers for policymakers to consider in developing genome editing policy.

Indexed as

citizen engagementgenome editing policygenome editing regulationHeritable human genome editingnon-heritable human genome editing

Identifiers

PMID38550949
PMCPMC10953736

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.