| Title |
Fostering responsible research with genome editing technologies: a European perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Transgenic Research, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11248-017-0028-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hervé Chneiweiss, François Hirsch, Lluis Montoliu, Albrecht M. Müller, Solveig Fenet, Marion Abecassis, Jennifer Merchant, Bernard Baertschi, Mylène Botbol-Baum, James A. Houghton, Mihalis Kritikos, Janet Mifsud, Ewa Bartnik, Johannes Rath, Christiane Druml, Bärbel Friedrich, Ana Sofia Carvalho, Dirk Lanzerath, Agnès Saint-Raymond |
| Abstract |
In this consensus paper resulting from a meeting that involved representatives from more than 20 European partners, we recommend the foundation of an expert group (European Steering Committee) to assess the potential benefits and draw-backs of genome editing (off-targets, mosaicisms, etc.), and to design risk matrices and scenarios for a responsible use of this promising technology. In addition, this European steering committee will contribute in promoting an open debate on societal aspects prior to a translation into national and international legislation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 15% |
| France | 5 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 10% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Grenada | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 17 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 64% |
| Scientists | 11 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2018.
All research outputs
#525,444
of 24,998,746 outputs
Outputs from Transgenic Research
#3
of 942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,227
of 320,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transgenic Research
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,998,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.