Cited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Germline Genome Editing and the Functions of Consent

Ranisch, Robert·2017·The American Journal of Bioethics

Abstract

Recent advances in the area of genome editing with tools such as CRISPR are generating a controversial discussion whether clinical research on human germline interventions should ever be endorsed (...

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15265161.2017.1388875

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Collins F. S., 2015, Statement on NIH funding of research using gene-editing technologies in human embryos (statement, April 4, 2015)
  2. Dickert N. W., 2017, American Journal of Bioethics, 17, 3, 10.1080/15265161.2017.1388448 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/15265161.2015.1104160 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Gunderson M., 2008, Journal of Evolution & Technology, 18, 86
  5. Habermas J., 2003, The future of human nature
  6. Holm S., 2002, A companion to genethics, 82
  7. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017, Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance
  8. 10.1080/15265161.2015.1103816 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Ranisch, R.
Venue
The American Journal of Bioethics
Published
2017-11-17
Volume
17
Issue
12
Pages
27-29
ISSN
  • 1526-5161
  • 1536-0075
Cited by
4
References
3
Language
en

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