Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human germline editing in the era of CRISPR-Cas: risk and uncertainty, inter-generational responsibility, therapeutic legitimacy

Schleidgen, Sebastian, Dederer, Hans-Georg, Sgodda, Susan, Cravcisin, Stefan, Lüneburg, Luca, Cantz, Tobias, Heinemann, Thomas·2020·BMC Medical Ethics
DOI 10.1186/s12910-020-00487-1PMC PMC7488432
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-associated (CRISPR-Cas) technology may allow for efficient and highly targeted gene editing in single-cell embryos. This possibility brings human germline editing into the focus of ethical and legal debates again. Main body: Against this background, we explore essential ethical and legal questions of interventions into the human germline by means of CRISPR-Cas: How should issues of risk and uncertainty be handled? What responsibilities arise regarding future generations? Under which conditions can germline editing measures be therapeutically legitimized? For this purpose, we refer to a scenario anticipating potential further development in CRISPR-Cas technology implying improved accuracy and exclusion of germline transmission to future generations. We show that, if certain concepts regarding germline editing are clarified, under such conditions a categorical prohibition of one-generation germline editing of single-cell embryos appears not to be ethically or legally justifiable. Conclusion: These findings are important prerequisites for the international debate on the ethical and legal justification of germline interventions in the human embryo as well as for the harmonization of international legal standards.

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 · 10.1186/s12910-020-00487-1

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Scenario 1. Hereditary outcomes of CRISPR-Cas mediated correction at the CFTR site (WT: wild-type allele; M: mutant allele)
Fig. 1 Scenario 1. Hereditary outcomes of CRISPR-Cas mediated correction at the CFTR site (WT: wild-type allele; M: mutant allele)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Scenario 2. “One-generation genome editing” (AAVS1: Adeno-Associated Virus Integration Site 1; WT: wild-type allele; M: mutant allele)
Fig. 2 Scenario 2. “One-generation genome editing” (AAVS1: Adeno-Associated Virus Integration Site 1; WT: wild-type allele; M: mutant allele)CC BY · PubMed Central

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: 2

  1. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 2015. Human genome surgery. Towards a responsible evaluation of a new technology. http://www.gentechnologiebericht.de/bilder/BBAW_Human-Genome-Surgery_PDF-A1b-1.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2019.
  2. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 26.10.2012.

Cited by

See all 43

Metadata

Authors
Schleidgen, S., Dederer, H.-G., Sgodda, S., Cravcisin, S., Lüneburg, L., Cantz, T., & Heinemann, T.
Venue
BMC Medical Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-09-11
Volume
21
Issue
1
ISSN
1472-6939
DOI
10.1186/s12910-020-00487-1
PMC
PMC7488432
Cited by
43
References
43
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GP1616A-C)

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.