Human embryo editing against disease is unsafe and unproven - despite rosy predictions.

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.

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.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Behavioral Genetics as a Public Science: Introduction to the Special Issue.Behavior genetics · 2026
   Article
2. Graph statistics theory of individualized quantitative genetics under haplotype-resolved genome assembly.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
   Article
3. CRISPR-Cas9 Therapeutics in Early Clinical Development: Delivery and Molecular Diagnostics.Cells · 2026
   Review
4. Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Should biology put complexity first?2025

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as