Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41640367›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2026

Balancing Progress and Precautions with Emerging Biotechnologies: Evaluating the Process of Gene Therapy Research Becoming "Normal".

Stephanie Solomon Cargill

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2026. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stephanie Solomon CargillAlden March Bioethics Institute, Albany Medical Collegehttps://ror.org/03g66yt05, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1782-0481

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, we have seen an immense expansion in recombinant DNA, especially in its use in gene therapy applications. Throughout its history, the United States set up several mechanisms of national safety and ethical oversight for rDNA to ensure that we proceeded with its use appropriately. As our knowledge and experience with it grew, there has been increasing pressure to decrease the oversight and monitoring requirements for its use. In 2019, the National Institutes of Health amended the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules eliminated three national mechanisms for guidance, monitoring, and review of this biotechnology. Four years later, we revisit these changes and their implications for a current emerging biotechnology: xenotransplantation. By better understanding the motivations for these mechanisms and analyzing the test case, we argue that these changes have worrisome implications for our ethical oversight of emerging biotechnologies both in the realm of gene transfer technologies and beyond.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchBiotechnologyGenetic TherapyGuidelines as TopicDNA, RecombinantEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchGene Transfer TechniquesHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Transplantation, HeterologousUnited StatesDNA, RecombinantBiotechnologiesGene therapyInstitutional Biosafety BoardsInstitutional Review BoardsRecombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC)

Identifiers

PMID41640367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.