Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38955479›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025

Anticipatory gaps challenge the public governance of heritable human genome editing.

Jon Rueda, Seppe Segers, Jeroen Hopster, Karolina Kudlek, Belén Liedo, Samuela Marchiori, John Danaher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. 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

7 authors.

Jon RuedaUniversity of Basque Country, Leioa, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5789-7515
Seppe SegersDepartment of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8231-6487
Jeroen HopsterEthics Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Karolina KudlekEthics Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Belén LiedoInstituto de Filosfía, CSIC, Madrid, Spain.
Samuela MarchioriDelft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
John DanaherNational University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland john.danaher@nuigalway.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering public moral attitudes is a hallmark of the anticipatory governance of emerging biotechnologies, such as heritable human genome editing. However, such anticipatory governance often overlooks that future morality is open to change and that future generations may perform different moral assessments on the very biotechnologies we are trying to govern in the present. In this article, we identify an 'anticipatory gap' that has not been sufficiently addressed in the discussion on the public governance of heritable genome editing, namely, uncertainty about the moral visions of future generations about the emerging applications that we are currently attempting to govern now. This paper motivates the relevance of this anticipatory gap, identifying the challenges it generates and offering various recommendations so that moral uncertainty does not lead to governance paralysis with regard to human germline genome editing.

Indexed as

Gene EditingGenome, HumanBiotechnologyHumansMoralsPublic OpinionUncertaintyEthicsGenetic EngineeringGenetic EnhancementMoralsPublic Policy

Identifiers

PMID38955479
PMCPMC12171425

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.