Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42090148›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report

Transformed but Not Cured: The Ethics of Describing Gene-Editing Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease.

Jada Wiggleton-Little, Shameka Poetry Thomas, Kristin Walters, Consuela Albright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report. 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

4 authors.

Jada Wiggleton-Little
Shameka Poetry Thomas
Kristin Walters
Consuela Albright

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In December 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved gene-editing therapies as sickle cell disease treatments. Such approvals for gene-editing not only mark radical scientific innovations for populations living with sickle cell disease (SCD) across the United States but also generate an expectation of a potential cure-the end or eradication of an illness and its effects. This essay, however, cautions against framing gene-editing therapy as a "cure" for SCD. Our argument illustrates that, even if gene editing is proven to permanently normalize the hematologic function of the body, there are other painful aspects of SCD that gene editing is unable to transform. Scientific researchers and health care practitioners could benefit from further bioethical consideration of the effects of using curative language with regards to SCD. The curative framing can easily generate misunderstandings in patient-provider communication and elicit unrealistic expectations. Raising awareness about the importance of how gene-editing therapies for SCD are described and about the need to discuss their limitations can prevent further harm.

Indexed as

Anemia, Sickle CellGene EditingGenetic TherapyHumansUnited Statesbioethicscuredoctor‐patient communicationgene editinglived experiencepainSCDsickle cell disease

Identifiers

PMID42090148
PMCPMC13148463

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.