Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39046699›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2025

Genome Editing Dilemma: Navigating Dual-Use Potential and Charting the Path Forward.

Ana Ruxandra Badea, Oliver Feeney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 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. Review
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.

Ana Ruxandra BadeaUniversity of Bucharest, Faculty of Philosophy, Splaiul Independentei 204, 060024, Bucharest, Romania. anaruxandrabadea@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0002-9372-3998
Oliver FeeneyUniversity of Tübingen, Ethics of Genome Editing Research Unit, Institute of Ethics and History of Medicine, Gartenstr. 47, 72074, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contemporary genome editing techniques have made genomic intervention-from microorganism to human-more accessible, easier to use, and more accurate than previous methods. We argue that, notwithstanding its merits in treating and preventing disease in humans, genome editing represents a potential threat for domestic and international security, requiring an integrated approach in regulating, detecting, preventing, and mitigating the risk of its use for malicious purposes. Despite the global regulatory ambitions of the 2021 WHO framework, we see insufficient attention given to the future prospect of dual-use genomic technology. Drawing parallels with the nuclear field, we suggest tentative practical steps for a way forward in dealing with genome editing technologies, such as: 1) adapting national (bio)security and defence strategies to include genome editing as a possible threat (with conceivable WMD potential); 2) enhancing the international dialogue on genome editing and raising the issue at the highest level; 3) working towards a global, legally binding verification mechanism; 4) tracking genome editing technologies.

Indexed as

Gene EditingSecurity MeasuresHumansBioethicsCRISPR/Cas9Dual-useGenome editingMilitarySecurity threats

Identifiers

PMID39046699
PMCPMC12222282

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.