ArticleFrontiers in genome editing2026
Navigating the human gene editing scene and proposing a new governance framework in Africa: from knowledge to policy to action.
Article in Frontiers in genome editing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene editing holds both hope and despair, necessitating vigilant, ethicolegal oversight to harness its advancement and avoid unintended effects like off-target effects and mosaicism. Despite efforts, governance fragmentation persists regionally and globally. Africa needs a phased, harmonized, continental governance framework for gene editing that combines regional oversight, national implementation, accountability, data governance, genomic sovereignty, and public participation. Policy harmonization is close to accomplishment, but obstacles persist. This paper proposes a practical continent-wide model anchored on African conformity, national legislative capacities, communal engagement, and data sharing. It presents an operational plan encompassing grassroots, nation-state, and regional regulatory bodies, centralized on a new pan-African agency for optimal oversight and governance. The model incorporates bioethical principlism and Ubuntu philosophy, forming the foundations of accountable and safe gene editing research and practice. Trespassing these foundations is a severe, inter-generational, and irresponsible act. This policy review critically analyzes the literature and evidence around gene editing, examining uncertainties, dilemmas, biases, and gaps in concepts. It presents an interpretation of the analysis in a narrative discourse with policy recommendations and governance reforms. The authors relied on empirical evidence and normative arguments. Gene editing is a multifaceted issue, yet a recourse for many patients with devastating diseases. Global progress has been hindered by procedural and operational defects and the controversy of enhancement versus therapy. Declarations, guidelines, and conventions should be prioritized to achieve universal benefits. A diligent consideration of collective risks is crucial to designing effective and inclusive policies. A multi-level approach is imperative for maintaining momentum and pace in technology development and localization.
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.