Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human Germline Genome Editing: On the Nature of Our Reasons to Genome Edit

Sparrow, Robert·2022·The American Journal of Bioethics
DOI 10.1080/15265161.2021.1907480
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

bioethicists have tended to distinguish between two different ways in which reproductive technologies may have implications for the welfare of future persons. Some interventions harm or benefit particular individuals: they are "person affecting." Other interventions determine which individual, of a number of possible individuals, comes into existence: they are "identity affecting" and raise the famous "non-identity problem." For the past several decades, bioethical debate has, for the most part, proceeded on the assumption that direct genetic modification of human embryos would be person affecting. In this paper, I argue that that genome editing is highly unlikely to be person affecting for the foreseeable future and, as a result, will neither benefit nor harm edited individuals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15265161.2021.1907480

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. de Araujo M., 2017, Journal of Evolution and Technology, 27, 24
  2. Douglas, T. and K. Devolder. 2019. Gene editing, identity and benefit. Paper presented at Genome editing - biomedical and ethical perspectives: An International Conference, 20–21 August, in Belgrade, Serbia.
  3. Glover J., 2001, Bioethics, 429
  4. Gyngell C., 2016, Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine, 6, 57
  5. Mukherjee S., 2016, The gene: An intimate history
  6. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine., 2017, Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance.
  7. Parfit D., 1984, Reasons and persons
  8. Regalado A., 2015, MIT Technology Review, 118, 26
  9. Smolensky K. R., 2008, Hastings Law Journal, 60, 299
  10. Stock G., 2003, Redesigning humans: Choosing our children’s genes

Cited by

See all 40

Metadata

Authors
Sparrow, R.
Venue
The American Journal of Bioethics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-04-19
Volume
22
Issue
9
Pages
4-15
ISSN
  • 1526-5161
  • 1536-0075
DOI
10.1080/15265161.2021.1907480
Cited by
40
References
80
Language
en
Funders
Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (9)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.