The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate
Abstract
Technology evolves at a dazzling speed, and nowhere more so than in the field of genetic engineering, where the possibility of directly changing the genes of one's children is quickly becoming a reality. The public is rightly concerned, but interestingly, they have not had much to say about the implications of recent advancements in human genetics. Playing God? asks why and explores the social forces that have led to the thinning out of public debate over human genetic engineering. John H. Evans contends that the problem lies in the structure of the debate itself. Disputes over human genetic engineering concern the means for achieving assumed ends, rather than being a healthy discussion about the ends themselves. According to Evans, this change in focus occurred as the jurisdiction over the debate shifted from scientists to bioethicists, a change which itself was caused by the rise of the bureaucratic state as the authority in such matters. The implications of this timely study are twofold. Evans not only explores how decisions about the ethics of human genetic engineering are made, but also shows how the structure of the debate has led to the technological choices we now face.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
Self-citation
Cited by
The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10101 · Cited by 502
Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative
Evans, J. H., & Evans, M. S. (2008) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134702 · Cited by 288
Self-citationDion-Labrie, M., Fortin, M.-C., Hébert, M.-J., & Doucet, H. (2010) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/1472-6939-11-5 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Berkman, J., Hauerwas, S., Stout, J., Meilaender, G., Childress, J. F., Evans, J. H., & Philosophy Documentation Center
- Venue
- Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics
- Publisher
- Philosophy Documentation Center
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 183-217
- ISSN
- 1540-7942 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2141448824
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.