Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40788566›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025

"Snip, snip, cure"? Philosophical, legal and biomedical perspectives on novel somatic genomic therapies.

Johanna Risse, Lothar Pietrek, Tobias Cantz, Merlin Krzemien, Jan Schnalke, Reto Eggenschwiler, Thomas Heinemann, Hans-Georg Dederer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. 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

8 authors.

Johanna RisseInstitute for Medical Humanities, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6766-4309
Lothar PietrekChair of Constitutional and Administrative Law, Public International Law, European and International Economic Law, Faculty of Law, University of Passau, Innstraße 39, 94032, Passau, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1127-0853
Tobias CantzTranslational Hepatology and Stem Cell Biology, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Infectious Diseases, and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Carl- Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1382-9577
Merlin KrzemienInstitute for Medical Humanities, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4724-5960
Jan SchnalkeInstitute for Medical Humanities, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8045-4402
Reto EggenschwilerTranslational Hepatology and Stem Cell Biology, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Infectious Diseases, and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Carl- Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3588-7847
Thomas HeinemannInstitute for Medical Humanities, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8316-7054
Hans-Georg DedererChair of Constitutional and Administrative Law, Public International Law, European and International Economic Law, Faculty of Law, University of Passau, Innstraße 39, 94032, Passau, Germany. Hans-Georg.Dederer@Uni-Passau.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6024-8727

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advent of innovative techniques, such as the CRISPR/Cas system, has opened up a new range of possibilities for modifying the genome, with the potential to address previously unmet therapeutic needs of patients with genetic diseases. These new possibilities have not only raised ethical concerns but also challenged existing classifications of genome modification techniques. While the legal status of some of these new therapies remains uncertain, there is an ongoing debate within philosophy of biology about the information-related metaphors adopted by scientists to describe and classify the genome and its therapeutic modification. Given the continuing advance of new genomic therapies, we show, employing an interdisciplinary approach, that a comprehensive framework for the classification of these technologies is needed to resolve legal and philosophical issues. The first section provides an analysis of the current state of novel genome-modifying techniques in medical genetics. In the second section, we assess the regulatory status of these techniques within the European regulatory framework for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). Drawing on these results, we argue in the third section from a philosophical perspective that metaphors, such as 'editing' the genome, which are based on a conception of the genome as linear information, cannot adequately capture the breadth of advanced genomic technologies. To accurately categorise these techniques in a manner that meets their diverse applications, we propose introducing the umbrella term 'somatic genomic therapies' (SGTs). Urging an integrative approach to defining and classifying new technologies in medical genetics, we advocate for the development of an integrative concept of SGTs.

Indexed as

Gene EditingGenetic TherapyGenomicsCRISPR-Cas SystemsHumansPhilosophy, MedicalAdvanced therapy medicinal productsCRISPR/CasGene therapyGenome editingPostgenomic era

Identifiers

PMID40788566
PMCPMC12380945

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.