The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond babies: Implications of human genome editing for women, children, and families
Abstract
Scholarship on human germline editing has centered on the risks to the genetically-modified child. However, far less emphasis is focused on women who will become pregnant with a genetically modified embryo as part of human subject research or the families that raise children whose genomes were modified as an embryo. The lack of attention on women and families places these key stakeholders in genomic technologies at significant medical, ethical, and personal harm as research rapidly moves forward to advance the science of genomic modification. Now is the time to address how the interests of women and families should be represented in the ethical and scientific frameworks of human genomic modification, with specific considerations for Institutional Review Boards who review protocols for rigorous human subject protections and scientists who develop scientific methodologies that dictate the potential risks conferred to research participants. In this paper, we examine the implications of genomic modification of human embryo for women, children, and families to explore how to review a first-in-human clinical protocol of human genomic officiation responsibly.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“As the focus of the current debate has been on the safety of the child and its potential descendants, it has largely been ignored how i-HGE can also pose risks to the intended mother as she is the primary and first research subject exposed to the burdens of the experiments (Simonstein 2019; Farrell et al. 2019; Farrell, Malek, and Scott 2021).”
From Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic (2023) · cites this paper as Farrell, Malek, and Scott 2021
Citations
Cites
Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing
Lander, E. S., Baylis, F., Zhang, F., Charpentier, E., Berg, P., Bourgain, C., Friedrich, B., Joung, J. K., Li, J., Liu, D., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00726-5 · Cited by 512 · cited 1×
“These risks, along with the He Jiankui affair, have divided ethicists, policymakers, and scientists on whether and how we can responsibly proceed with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recommendations that germline editing should be used only in narrow therapeutic case (NASEM 2017; L…”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4 · DOI · Paper page
- Beckman E. S., 2019, CRISPR Journal, 2, 324, 10.1089/crispr.2019.0021 · DOI
- Chan S., 2020, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63, 111, 10.1353/pbm.2020.0009 · DOI
- Coutifaris C., 2019, Lancet, 393, 1264, 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30426-X · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701 · DOI · Paper page
- European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, 2017, ESHRE Annual Report
- Eyal N., 2019, Clinical Trials, 16, 450, 10.1177/1740774519862783 · DOI
- 10.1001/amajethics.2019.1071 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s00109-020-01893-z · DOI · Paper page
- Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2005, Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research
- Kimmelman J., 2007, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16, 483, 10.1017/S0963180107070648 · DOI
- Klipstein S., 2017, Hastings Center Report, 47, S28, 10.1002/hast.792 · DOI
- 10.2979/FAB.2008.1.2.5 · DOI
- 10.1080/03605310701515369 · DOI
- Malek J., 2013, Bioethics, 27, 59, 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01890.x · DOI
- Mehravar M., 2019, Developmental Biology, 445, 156, 10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.10.008 · DOI
- National Academics of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017, Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance
- Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2018, Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Issues
- Press N. A., 1991, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 8, 97, 10.1159/000263878 · DOI
- Resnik D. B., 2006, IRB, 28, 1
- Strong K. A., 2011, AJOB Primary Research, 2, 13, 10.1080/21507716.2011.616184 · DOI
- Weisberg S. M., 2017, Frontiers in Public Health, 5
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Initial heritable genome editing: mapping a responsible pathway from basic research to the clinic
Ranisch, R., Trettenbach, K., & Arnason, G. (2023) · Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-022-10115-x · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- M. Farrell, R., Malek, J., & Thomas Scott, C.
- Venue
- Accountability in Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-04-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 67-76
- ISSN
- 0898-9621
- 1545-5815
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Funders
- NIH (1RO1HG010332-01)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
