The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 8 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification
Open accessAbstract
A framework for open discourse on the use of CRISPR-Cas9 technology to manipulate the human genome is urgently needed , Genome engineering technology offers unparalleled potential for modifying human and nonhuman genomes. In humans, it holds the promise of curing genetic disease, while in other organisms it provides methods to reshape the biosphere for the benefit of the environment and human societies. However, with such enormous opportunities come unknown risks to human health and well-being. In January, a group of interested stakeholders met in Napa, California ( 1 ), to discuss the scientific, medical, legal, and ethical implications of these new prospects for genome biology. The goal was to initiate an informed discussion of the uses of genome engineering technology, and to identify those areas where action is essential to prepare for future developments. The meeting identified immediate steps to take toward ensuring that the application of genome engineering technology is performed safely and ethically.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
A 2015 Science policy forum from the Napa meeting argues that CRISPR-Cas9 genome engineering offers major promise but also unknown risks, especially for human germline modification. It recommends broad open discussion and, in the near term, strongly discouraging clinical human germline genome modification while research and governance proceed.
Key findings
- The Napa meeting concluded there is an urgent need for open discussion of the merits and risks of human genome modification by a broad cohort including scientists, clinicians, social scientists, the general public, and relevant public entities and interest groups.
- Near-term recommendations include strongly discouraging germline genome modification for clinical application in humans, even in lax jurisdictions; creating expert forums for education; encouraging transparent research on efficacy and specificity in human and nonhuman model systems; and convening a globally representative group to consider policies.
- The paper notes that human germline engineering methods have already been demonstrated in mice and monkeys, and it distinguishes mitochondrial transfer—which does not use CRISPR-Cas9 and was approved by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and by Parliament in the United Kingdom—from nuclear germline editing.
- No quantitative data or effect sizes are reported; the text is a consensus policy commentary.
Methods
- Design: policy forum/commentary reporting on a January 2015 Napa, California meeting of CRISPR-Cas9 developers and users and experts in genetics, law, and bioethics; all participants were from the United States.
- Data or sample: no empirical dataset; discussion focused on human germline engineering and did not address mitochondrial transfer.
- Main analysis: consensus discussion and recommendations for governance, risk assessment, public engagement, and research priorities.
Limitations
- Stated: the Napa discussion did not address mitochondrial transfer; the group was all from the United States, and the paper calls for globally representative participation.
- Stated: limits to knowledge of human genetics, gene-environment interactions, and disease pathways create uncertainty about unintended consequences of heritable germline modifications.
- Evident from the text: the recommendations are not based on systematic data or quantitative risk assessment and are advisory rather than binding.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
2 of 8 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
The CRISPR-Cas9 technique allows DNA sequence changes in pluripotent embryonic stem cells that can then be cultured to produce specific tissues, such as cardiomyocytes or neurons.
“The technique also allows DNA sequence changes in pluripotent embryonic stem cells (4) that can then be cultured to produce specific tissues, such as cardiomyocytes or neurons (5).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [4] Mali P Science 2013 339 823 Medline 23287722 PMC3712628 source
The paper’s genome-targeting results report CRISPR-Cas9 editing in human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, supporting the claim that the technique can change DNA in pluripotent cells. It does not report editing embryonic stem cells; the citing sentence attaches this source to that part, while assigning the tissue-differentiation claim to citation (5). (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [5] Zhu Z González F Huangfu D Methods Enzymol 2014 546 215 Medline 25398343 PMC4418970 source
- Premisecitation
Mitochondrial transfer is being considered by the Institute of Medicine and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States.
“Although characterized by some as another form of “germline” engineering, mitochondrial transfer raises different issues and has already been approved by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and by Parliament in the United Kingdom (10) and is being considered by the Institute of Medicine and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States (11).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [11] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee Meeting: Announcement www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/ucm380042.htm; www.iom.edu/activities/research/mitoethics.aspx.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Genome engineering methods relevant to human germline engineering have already been demonstrated in mice and monkeys.
“focused on the issue of human germline engineering, as the methods have already been demonstrated in mice (6) and monkeys (7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Changes to the human germ line could be made using CRISPR-Cas9.
“Humans are no exception—changes to the human germ line could be made using this simple and widely available technology.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: CRISPR-Cas9 and other genome engineering methods can be used to change DNA in the nuclei of reproductive cells (germ line).
- Premisecitation
The CRISPR-Cas9 system enables introduction of DNA sequence changes that correct genetic defects in whole animals, such as replacing a mutated gene underlying liver-based metabolic disease in a mouse model.
“For example, the CRISPR-Cas9 system enables introduction of DNA sequence changes that correct genetic defects in whole animals, such as replacing a mutated gene underlying liver-based metabolic disease in a mouse model (3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [3] Yin H Nat. Biotechnol 2014 32 551 Medline 24681508 PMC4157757 source
- Interpretationreasoning
Heritable germline modifications have the potential for unintended consequences.
“Even this seemingly straightforward scenario raises serious concerns, including the potential for unintended consequences of heritable germline modifications,”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There are limits to current knowledge of human genetics, gene-environment interactions, and disease pathways.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 2
- It may state two separate claims as one. 3
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
InterpretationreasoningSuch studies are laying the groundwork for refined approaches that could eventually treat human disease.
“Such studies are laying the groundwork for refined approaches that could eventually treat human disease.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationMitochondrial transfer has already been approved by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and by Parliament in the United Kingdom.
“Although characterized by some as another form of “germline” engineering, mitochondrial transfer raises different issues and has already been approved by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and by Parliament in the United Kingdom (10) and is being considered by the Institute of Medicine and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States (11).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [10] The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/572/contents/made (effective 29 October 2015).
It may state two separate claims as one.
PremisecitationCRISPR-Cas9 is a simple, inexpensive, and remarkably effective genome engineering method.
“However, this limitation has been upended by the rapid development and widespread adoption of a simple, inexpensive, and remarkably effective genome engineering method known as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)–Cas9 (2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [2] Doudna JA Charpentier E Science 2014 346 1258096 Medline 25430774
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Interpretationnone givenThe simplicity of CRISPR-Cas9 allows any researcher with knowledge of molecular biology to modify genomes.
“The simplicity of the CRISPR-Cas9 system allows any researcher with knowledge of molecular biology to modify genomes, making feasible experiments that were previously difficult or impossible to conduct.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimIt may state two separate claims as one.
InterpretationreasoningIt is now possible to carry out genome modification in fertilized animal eggs or embryos, thereby altering the genetic makeup of every differentiated cell in an organism and ensuring that the changes will be passed on to the organism's progeny.
“Thus, it is now possible to carry out genome modification in fertilized animal eggs or embryos, thereby altering the genetic makeup of every differentiated cell in an organism and so ensuring that the changes will be passed on to the organism’s progeny.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: CRISPR-Cas9 and other genome engineering methods can be used to change DNA in the nuclei of reproductive cells (germ line).
The paper relies on this without support.
There are limits to current knowledge of human genetics, gene-environment interactions, and disease pathways.
“because there are limits to our knowledge of human genetics, gene-environment interactions, and the pathways of disease (including the interplay between one disease and other conditions or diseases in the same patient).”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the United States, human research involving heritable germline modifications currently would require an Investigational New Drug exemption from the FDA.
“In the United States, such human research currently would require an Investigational New Drug exemption from the Food and Drug Administration”
The paper relies on this without support.
In countries with a highly developed bioscience capacity, germline genome modification in humans is currently illegal or tightly regulated.
“(In countries with a highly developed bioscience capacity, germline genome modification in humans is currently illegal or tightly regulated.)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mitochondrial transfer does not use CRISPR-Cas9.
“The Napa discussion did not address mitochondrial transfer (8, 9), a technique that does not use CRISPR-Cas9.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Public trust in science ultimately begins with and requires ongoing transparency and open discussion.
“At the dawn of the recombinant DNA era, the most important lesson learned was that public trust in science ultimately begins with and requires ongoing transparency and open discussion.”
The paper relies on this without support.
CRISPR-Cas9 and other genome engineering methods can be used to change DNA in the nuclei of reproductive cells (germ line).
“In addition to facilitating changes in differentiated somatic cells of animals and plants, CRISPR-Cas9 technology as well as other genome engineering methods can be used to change the DNA in the nuclei of reproductive cells that transmit information from one generation to the next (an organism’s “germ line”).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Off-target alterations and on-target events with unintended consequences are possible with CRISPR-Cas9.
“Considerations include the possibility of off-target alterations, as well as on-target events that have unintended consequences.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The safety and efficacy of genome engineering technology can be ensured.
“Assuming the safety and efficacy of the technology can be ensured, a key point of discussion is whether the treatment or cure of severe diseases in humans would be a responsible use of genome engineering, and if so, under what circumstances.”
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?
A report of the Napa conference was published in March 2015 in Science and essentially carried recommendations to strongly discourage work on introducing heritable changes in human embryonic cells, at least during active discussions of social, environmental and ethical consequences.
“A subsequent report of the results of the conference was published in March 2015 in the journal Science [46], which essentially carried recommendations to strongly discourage work on introducing heritable changes in human embryonic cells, at least for the duration of active discussions of the social, environmental and ethical consequences of such manipulations.”
From CRISPR–Cas9: A History of Its Discovery and Ethical Considerations of Its Use in Genome Editing (2022) · cites this paper as [46]
Citations
Cites
RNA-Guided Human Genome Engineering via Cas9
Mali, P., Yang, L., Esvelt, K. M., Aach, J., Guell, M., DiCarlo, J. E., Norville, J. E., & Church, G. M. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1232033 · Cited by 9,210
Self-citationThe new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9
Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1258096 · Cited by 7,062
Self-citationWang, H., Yang, H., Shivalila, C. S., Dawlaty, M. M., Cheng, A. W., Zhang, F., & Jaenisch, R. (2013) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.025 · Cited by 3,495
Niu, Y., Shen, B., Cui, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, J., Wang, L., Kang, Y., Zhao, X., Si, W., Li, W., et al. (2014) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.01.027 · Cited by 1,033
Genome editing with Cas9 in adult mice corrects a disease mutation and phenotype
Yin, H., Xue, W., Chen, S., Bogorad, R. L., Benedetti, E., Grompe, M., Koteliansky, V., Sharp, P. A., Jacks, T., & Anderson, D. G. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2884 · Cited by 951
Towards germline gene therapy of inherited mitochondrial diseases
Tachibana, M., Amato, P., Sparman, M. L., Woodward, J., Melguizo‐Sanchis, D., Ma, H., Gutiérrez, N. M., Tippner-Hedges, R., Kang, E., Lee, H.-S., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11647 · Cited by 429
The iCRISPR Platform for Rapid Genome Editing in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
Zhu, Z., González, F., & Huangfu, D. (2014) · Methods in Enzymology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801185-0.00011-8 · Cited by 66
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond
Adli, M. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04252-2 · Cited by 1,545
CRISPR/Cas9 in Genome Editing and Beyond
Wang, H., Russa, M. F. L., & Qi, L. S. (2016) · Annual Review of Biochemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev-biochem-060815-014607 · Cited by 1,210
Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2012 – an update
Ginn, S. L., Alexander, I. E., Edelstein, M. L., Abedi, M. R., & Wixon, J. (2013) · The Journal of Gene Medicine · doi:10.1002/jgm.2698 · Cited by 1,186
Gene therapy returns to centre stage
Naldini, L. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature15818 · Cited by 1,184
Overcoming cellular barriers for RNA therapeutics
Dowdy, S. F. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3802 · Cited by 1,139
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes
Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., Lv, J., Xie, X., Chen, Y., Li, Y., et al. (2015) · Protein & Cell · doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5 · Cited by 1,135
CRISPR-Based Technologies for the Manipulation of Eukaryotic Genomes
Komor, A. C., Badran, A. H., & Liu, D. R. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.044 · Cited by 1,034
Applications of CRISPR technologies in research and beyond
Barrangou, R., & Doudna, J. A. (2016) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3659 · Cited by 1,005
Self-citationGene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2017: An update
Ginn, S. L., Amaya, A. K., Alexander, I. E., Edelstein, M., & Abedi, M. R. (2018) · The Journal of Gene Medicine · doi:10.1002/jgm.3015 · Cited by 903
The CRISPR-Cas immune system: Biology, mechanisms and applications
Rath, D., Amlinger, L., Rath, A., & Lundgren, M. (2015) · Biochimie · doi:10.1016/j.biochi.2015.03.025 · Cited by 471
Delivery technologies for genome editing
Yin, H., Kauffman, K. J., & Anderson, D. G. (2017) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2016.280 · Cited by 597
Therapeutic developments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Verhaart, I. E. C., & Aartsma-Rus, A. M. (2019) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/s41582-019-0203-3 · Cited by 391
Origins of Programmable Nucleases for Genome Engineering
Chandrasegaran, S., & Carroll, D. (2015) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.10.014 · Cited by 344
Self-citationA decade of discovery: CRISPR functions and applications
Barrangou, R., & Horvath, P. (2017) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.92 · Cited by 326
CRISPR Ethics: Moral Considerations for Applications of a Powerful Tool
Brokowski, C., & Adli, M. (2019) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2018.05.044 · Cited by 320
Manipulating Bacterial Communities by in situ Microbiome Engineering
Sheth, R. U., Cabral, V., Chen, S. P., & Wang, H. H. (2016) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2016.01.005 · Cited by 302
Advancements in zebrafish applications for 21st century toxicology
Garcia, G. R., Noyes, P. D., & Tanguay, R. L. (2016) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.03.009 · Cited by 286
Epigenetic Inheritance: Concepts, Mechanisms and Perspectives
Lacal, I., & Ventura, R. (2018) · Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnmol.2018.00292 · Cited by 278
Kang, X., He, W., Huang, Y., Qian, Y., Chen, Y., Gao, X., Sun, X., & Fan, Y. (2016) · Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10815-016-0710-8 · Cited by 269
Evolutionary Ecology of Prokaryotic Immune Mechanisms
van Houte, S., Buckling, A., & Westra, E. R. (2016) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00011-16 · Cited by 260
Genome editing with the CRISPR‐Cas system: an art, ethics and global regulatory perspective
Zhang, D., Hussain, A., Manghwar, H., Xie, K., Xie, S., Zhao, S., Larkin, R. M., Qing, P., Jin, S., & Ding, F. (2020) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.13383 · Cited by 254
Ormond, K. E., Mortlock, D. P., Scholes, D. T., Bombard, Y., Brody, L. C., Faucett, W. A., Garrison, N. A., Hercher, L., Isasi, R., Middleton, A., et al. (2017) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012 · Cited by 252
Bioethical issues in genome editing by CRISPR-Cas9 technology
Ayanoğlu, F. B., ELÇİN, A. E., & Elçin, Y. M. (2020) · TURKISH JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY · doi:10.3906/biy-1912-52 · Cited by 246
Tropicalisation of temperate reefs: Implications for ecosystem functions and management actions
Vergés, A., McCosker, E., Mayer‐Pinto, M., Coleman, M. A., Wernberg, T., Ainsworth, T. D., & Steinberg, P. D. (2019) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2435.13310 · Cited by 234
CRISPR–Cas9: A History of Its Discovery and Ethical Considerations of Its Use in Genome Editing
Gostimskaya, I. (2022) · Biochemistry (Moscow) · doi:10.1134/s0006297922080090 · Cited by 224
Boeke, J. D., Church, G. M., Hessel, A., Kelley, N. J., Arkin, A. P., Cai, Y., Carlson, R. H., Chakravarti, A., Cornish, V. W., Holt, L. J., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf6850 · Cited by 223
Self-citationAdvanced Maternal Age in IVF: Still a Challenge? The Present and the Future of Its Treatment
Ubaldi, F. M., Cimadomo, D., Vaiarelli, A., Fabozzi, G., Venturella, R., Maggiulli, R., Mazzilli, R., Ferrero, S., Palagiano, A., & Rienzi, L. F. (2019) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2019.00094 · Cited by 220
A global observatory for gene editing
Jasanoff, S., & Hurlbut, J. B. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-018-03270-w · Cited by 201
A mouse model for adult cardiac-specific gene deletion with CRISPR/Cas9
Carroll, K. J., Makarewich, C. A., McAnally, J., Anderson, D. M., Zentilin, L., Liu, N., Giacca, M., Bassel‐Duby, R., & Olson, E. N. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1523918113 · Cited by 191
Recent Progress in CRISPR/Cas9 Technology
Mei, Y., Wang, Y., Chen, H., Sun, Z. S., & Ju, X.-D. (2016) · Journal of Genetics and Genomics · doi:10.1016/j.jgg.2016.01.001 · Cited by 148
Development of CRISPR-Cas systems for genome editing and beyond
Zhang, F. (2019) · Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics · doi:10.1017/s0033583519000052 · Cited by 188
Synthetic CRISPR RNA-Cas9–guided genome editing in human cells
Rahdar, M., McMahon, M. A., Prakash, T. P., Swayze, E. E., Bennett, C. F., & Cleveland, D. W. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1520883112 · Cited by 184
Toward a Predictive Understanding of Earth’s Microbiomes to Address 21st Century Challenges
Blaser, M. J., Cardon, Z. G., Cho, M. K., Dangl, J. L., Donohue, T. J., Green, J. L., Knight, R. D., Maxon, M. E., Northen, T. R., Pollard, K. S., et al. (2016) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.00714-16 · Cited by 181
The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing
Gyngell, C., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Philosophy · doi:10.1111/japp.12249 · Cited by 174
No time to waste—the ethical challenges created by CRISPR
Caplan, A. L., Parent, B., Shen, M. J., & Plunkett, C. (2015) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.201541337 · Cited by 170
A 2018 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biological Diversity
Sutherland, W. J., Butchart, S. H. M., Connor, B., Culshaw, C., Dicks, L. V., Dinsdale, J., Doran, H., Entwistle, A. C., Fleishman, E., GIBBONS, D. W., et al. (2017) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.11.006 · Cited by 160
Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape
Baylis, F., Darnovsky, M., Hasson, K., & Krahn, T. M. (2020) · The CRISPR Journal · doi:10.1089/crispr.2020.0082 · Cited by 155
Immunity to CRISPR Cas9 and Cas12a therapeutics
Chew, W. L. (2017) · WIREs Systems Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1002/wsbm.1408 · Cited by 149
Public views on gene editing and its uses
GASKELL, G. D., Bárd, I., Allansdottir, A., da Cunha, R. V., Eduard, P., Hampel, J., Hildt, E., Hofmaier, C., Kronberger, N., Laursen, S., et al. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3958 · Cited by 149
Do CRISPR Germline Ethics Statements Cut It?
Brokowski, C. (2018) · The CRISPR Journal · doi:10.1089/crispr.2017.0024 · Cited by 149
Beyond the brain: Optogenetic control in the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system
Montgomery, K. L., Iyer, S. M., Christensen, A. J., Deisseroth, K., & Delp, S. L. (2016) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aad7577 · Cited by 147
The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos
Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T., & Gyngell, C. (2015) · Protein & Cell · doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0184-y · Cited by 143
Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features
Aach, J., Lunshof, J. E., Iyer, E. P. R., & Church, G. M. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.20674 · Cited by 138
Self-citationCRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing: Research technologies, clinical applications and ethical considerations
Memi, F., Ntokou, A., & Papangeli, I. (2018) · Seminars in Perinatology · doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2018.09.003 · Cited by 134
To Reduce the Global Burden of Human Schistosomiasis, Use ‘Old Fashioned’ Snail Control
Sokolow, S. H., Wood, C. L., Jones, I. J., Lafferty, K. D., Kuris, A. M., Hsieh, M. H., & Leo, G. A. D. (2017) · Trends in Parasitology · doi:10.1016/j.pt.2017.10.002 · Cited by 133
Experimental methods to preserve male fertility and treat male factor infertility
Gassei, K., & Orwig, K. E. (2015) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.12.020 · Cited by 132
Weninger, A., Fischer, J. E., Raschmanová, H., Kniely, C., Vogl, T., & Glieder, A. (2017) · Journal of Cellular Biochemistry · doi:10.1002/jcb.26474 · Cited by 132
A Global Social Media Survey of Attitudes to Human Genome Editing
McCaughey, T., Sanfilippo, P. G., Gooden, G. E. C., Budden, D., Fan, L., Fenwick, E., Rees, G., MacGregor, C., Si, L., Chen, C., et al. (2016) · Cell stem cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2016.04.011 · Cited by 131
Ethical Issues Regarding CRISPR Mediated Genome Editing
Shinwari, Z. K., Tanveer, F., & Khalil, A. T. (2017) · Current Issues in Molecular Biology · doi:10.21775/cimb.026.103 · Cited by 128
An extended set of yeast-based functional assays accurately identifies human disease mutationsPreprint
Sun, S., Yang, F., Tan, G., Costanzo, M., Oughtred, R., Hirschman, J., Theesfeld, C. L., Bansal, P., Sahni, N., Yi, S. S., et al. (2016) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.192526.115 · Cited by 119
Genome Editing: A New Approach to Human Therapeutics
Porteus, M. H. (2015) · The Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-124454 · Cited by 118
Nutrigenomics in the modern era
Mathers, J. C. (2016) · Proceedings of The Nutrition Society · doi:10.1017/s002966511600080x · Cited by 118
CRISPR: Science can't solve it
Sarewitz, D. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/522413a · Cited by 117
Precision cancer mouse models through genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9
Mou, H., Kennedy, Z., Anderson, D. G., Yin, H., & Xue, W. (2015) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-015-0178-7 · Cited by 116
The future of NGS (Next Generation Sequencing) analysis in testing food authenticity
Haynes, E., Jiménez, E., Pardo, M. Á., & Helyar, S. (2019) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.02.010 · Cited by 112
Modeling Disease In Vivo With CRISPR/Cas9
Dow, L. E. (2015) · Trends in Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2015.07.006 · Cited by 111
Lander, E. S. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1506446 · Cited by 108
Editing policy to fit the genome?
Isasi, R., Kleiderman, E., & Knoppers, B. M. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad6778 · Cited by 101
Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos
Cyranoski, D., & Reardon, S. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17378 · Cited by 101
Hit and go CAS9 delivered through a lentiviral based self-limiting circuit
Petris, G., Casini, A., Montagna, C., Lorenzin, F., Prandi, D., Romanel, A., Zasso, J., Conti, L., Demichelis, F., & Cereseto, A. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms15334 · Cited by 98
A CRISPR New World: Attitudes in the Public toward Innovations in Human Genetic Modification
Weisberg, S. M., Badgio, D., & Chatterjee, A. K. (2017) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00117 · Cited by 95
Nanotechnologies for biomedical science and translational medicine
Heath, J. R. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1515202112 · Cited by 93
“Editing” Genes: A Case Study About How Language Matters in Bioethics
O’Keefe, M., Perrault, S. T., Halpern, J., Ikemoto, L. C., & Yarborough, M. A. (2015) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1103804 · Cited by 92
Beyond safety: mapping the ethical debate on heritable genome editing interventions
Almeida, M., & Ranisch, R. (2022) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01147-y · Cited by 92
Agapito-Tenfen, S. Z., Okoli, A. S., Bernstein, M. J., Wikmark, O.-G., & Myhr, A. I. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01874 · Cited by 89
Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications
Ishii, T. (2015) · Trends in Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.006 · Cited by 85
Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society
Ishii, T. (2015) · Briefings in Functional Genomics · doi:10.1093/bfgp/elv053 · Cited by 84
Current approaches in CRISPR-Cas9 mediated gene editing for biomedical and therapeutic applications
Bhattacharjee, G., Gohil, N., Khambhati, K., Mani, I., Maurya, R., Karapurkar, J. K., Gohil, J., Chu, D., Vu‐Thi, H., Alzahrani, K. J., et al. (2022) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.02.005 · Cited by 84
Nelson, J. P., Selin, C. L., & Scott, C. T. (2021) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2021.1957579 · Cited by 83
Snipping around for food: economic, ethical and policy implications of CRISPR/Cas genome editing
Bartkowski, B., Theesfeld, I., Pirscher, F., & Timaeus, J. (2018) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.017 · Cited by 81
The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing
Carroll, D., & Charo, R. A. (2015) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0812-0 · Cited by 81
Self-citationGenome Editing and Its Applications in Model Organisms
Ma, D., & Liu, F. (2015) · Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics · doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2015.12.001 · Cited by 81
Rayner, E., Durin, M.-A., Thomas, R. J., Moralli, D., O'Cathail, S. M., Tomlinson, I. P. M., Green, C., & Lewis, A. (2019) · The CRISPR Journal · doi:10.1089/crispr.2019.0006 · Cited by 79
Risk associated with off-target plant genome editing and methods for its limitation
Zhao, H., & Wolt, J. D. (2017) · Emerging Topics in Life Sciences · doi:10.1042/etls20170037 · Cited by 79
Human Germline CRISPR-Cas Modification: Toward a Regulatory Framework
Evitt, N. H., Mascharak, S., & Altman, R. B. (2015) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1104160 · Cited by 58
Mulder, C. L., Zheng, Y., Jan, S. Z., Struijk, R. B., Repping, S., Hamer, G., & van Pelt, A. M. M. (2016) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw017 · Cited by 76
de la Fuente‐Núñez, C., & Lu, T. K. (2016) · Integrative Biology · doi:10.1039/c6ib00140h · Cited by 75
Genome editing and assisted reproduction: curing embryos, society or prospective parents?
Cavaliere, G. (2017) · Medicine Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-017-9793-y · Cited by 75
Howard, H. C., van El, C. G., Forzano, F., Radojkovic, D. P., Rial‐Sebbag, E., de Wert, G. M. W. R., Borry, P., & Cornel, M. C. (2017) · European Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41431-017-0024-z · Cited by 72
Evolving AAV-delivered therapeutics towards ultimate cures
He, X., Urip, B. A., Zhang, Z., Ngan, C. C., & Feng, B. (2021) · Journal of Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00109-020-02034-2 · Cited by 70
Towards a new era in medicine: therapeutic genome editing
Porteus, M. H. (2015) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0859-y · Cited by 69
Tao, W., Yang, A., Deng, Z., & Sun, Y. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.01660 · Cited by 69
Futuristic CRISPR-based biosensing in the cloud and internet of things era: an overview
Ibrahim, A. U., Al-Turjman, F. M., Sa’id, Z., & Özsöz, M. (2020) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-020-09010-5 · Cited by 68
ChatGPT in finance: Applications, challenges, and solutions
Khan, M. S., & Umer, H. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24890 · Cited by 67
Yes We Can! Exciting Progress and Prospects for Controlling Invasives on Islands and Beyond
Simberloff, D., Keitt, B., Will, D. J., Holmes, N. D., Pickett, E. P., & Genovesi, P. (2018) · Western North American Naturalist · doi:10.3398/064.078.0431 · Cited by 67
Reyes, Á. P., & Lanner, F. (2017) · Development · doi:10.1242/dev.139683 · Cited by 67
The genome editing revolution: A CRISPR‐Cas TALE off‐target story
Stella, S., & Montoya, G. (2016) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201670903 · Cited by 66
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing – new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology
Baumann, M. (2016) · NanoEthics · doi:10.1007/s11569-016-0259-0 · Cited by 66
Mitochondrial Modification Techniques and Ethical Issues
Gómez‐Tatay, L., Hernández‐Andreu, J. M., & Aznar, J. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm6030025 · Cited by 65
Risks and benefits of human germline genome editing: An ethical analysis
Rubeis, G., & Steger, F. (2018) · Asian Bioethics Review · doi:10.1007/s41649-018-0056-x · Cited by 49
Synthetic biology, metaphors and responsibility
McLeod, C. M., & Nerlich, B. (2017) · Life Sciences Society and Policy · doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0061-y · Cited by 63
CRISPR in context: towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing
Morrison, M., & de Saille, S. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0319-5 · Cited by 62
Yunes, M. C., Osório-Santos, Z., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Hötzel, M. J. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13094966 · Cited by 62
Lea, R. A., & Niakan, K. K. (2019) · Nature Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41556-019-0424-0 · Cited by 62
What Is Trust? Ethics and Risk Governance in Precision Medicine and Predictive Analytics
Adjekum, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2017) · OMICS A Journal of Integrative Biology · doi:10.1089/omi.2017.0156 · Cited by 61
Beyond editing to writing large genomes
Chari, R., & Church, G. M. (2017) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2017.59 · Cited by 60
Self-citationvan Beers, B. C. (2020) · Journal of Law and the Biosciences · doi:10.1093/jlb/lsaa006 · Cited by 59
Ethics and germline gene editing
Sugarman, J. (2015) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.201540879 · Cited by 58
Evans, J. H. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197519561.001.0001 · Cited by 57
Nayeri, S., Dehghanian, Z., Lajayer, B. A., Thomson, A., Astatkie, T., & Price, G. W. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139512 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- Baltimore, D., Berg, P., Botchan, M., Carroll, D., Charo, R. A., Church, G., Corn, J. E., Daley, G. Q., Doudna, J. A., Fenner, M., Greely, H. T., Jinek, M., Martin, G. S., Penhoet, E., Puck, J., Sternberg, S. H., Weissman, J. S., & Yamamoto, K. R.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Innovative Genomics Institute (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Department of Biochemistry, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Alta Partners, One Embarcadero Center, 37th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA.
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Doudna, Jennifer A.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2015-04-03
- Volume
- 348
- Issue
- 6230
- Pages
- 36-38
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- PMC
- PMC4394183
- OpenAlex
- W1987739153
- Cited by
- 733
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- Caribou Biosciences, Inc.
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- CRISPR/Cas9, germline editing, public discourse, genome editing regulation
- MeSH terms
- Biotechnology, Genetic Engineering, Germ Cells, Humans, Risk Management, Genome, Human, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Gene Transfer, Horizontal, Genomics, Targeted Gene Repair, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
