ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2026
Egalitarian Justice and the Prevalence Principle in Human Genome Editing.
Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Challenging the Boundaries Between Treatment, Prevention, and Enhancement in Human Genome Editing.The CRISPR journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
National and international agencies and organizations are currently considering which ethical principles should inform the governance and use of heritable and non-heritable human genome editing. In this paper, we consider the prevalence principle, according to which heritable and non-heritable genome editing in humans is permissible if and only if it involves the conversion of variants to ones expected to produce traits that are prevalent in the relevant population. This principle thus permits genome editing targeting variants responsible for disease and disability but prohibits genetic enhancement. We consider whether the prevalence principle is supported by considerations of egalitarian justice, as its proponents claim. We argue that it is not and that prominent theories of egalitarian justice instead offer different approaches to genome editing governance. We identify four egalitarian principles policymakers should consider when crafting anticipatory guidance for heritable and non-heritable genome editing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.