Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39534509›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genome editing2024

Beyond the traditional distinctions of genome editing: evaluating a vulnerability framework.

Ioanna Angelioudaki, Ana Ruxandra Badea, Martina Bodo, Daniel Fernández-Soto, Emmanouela Sevasti Karyampa, Adam Kokkinakis, Nikolaos Kolisis, Xenia Kominea, Sandra Ozáez Armijos, Simon Vogel and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genome editing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Ioanna AngelioudakiSecond Department of Surgery, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School of Athens, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Ana Ruxandra BadeaFaculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Martina BodoSchool of Statistical Sciences, La Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Daniel Fernández-SotoDepartment of Immunology and Oncology, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid, Spain.
Emmanouela Sevasti KaryampaFaculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Adam KokkinakisFaculty of Forest Sciences and Forest Ecology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Nikolaos KolisisDepartment of History and Theory of Law, School of Law, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Xenia KomineaMedical School of Athens, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA), Athens, Greece.
Sandra Ozáez ArmijosDepartment of Fundamental Microbiology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Simon VogelInstitute for Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Oliver FeeneyResearch Unit "Ethics of Genome Editing", Institute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over 40 years ago, the 1982 Splicing Life report outlined the two distinctions that have orientated much of the normative and legal landscape of genetic intervention or genome editing since - that of somatic versus germline (or heritable interventions) and medical versus non-medical (or enhancement) applications. During this time, these distinctions have been used to ethically prioritize some areas of research and potential application, such as somatic treatments, while considering others for prohibition, such as germline enhancements. Nevertheless, somatic interventions may also be done for controversial enhancement purposes while some germline interventions may be done with greater

Indexed as

CRISPRethicsgenome editingregulationvulnerability

Identifiers

PMID39534509
PMCPMC11556113

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.