↓ Skip to main content

Synthetic Biology and the Translational Imperative

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Synthetic Biology and the Translational Imperative
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-0011-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raheleh Heidari Feidt, Marcello Ienca, Bernice Simone Elger, Marc Folcher

Abstract

Advances at the interface between the biological sciences and engineering are giving rise to emerging research fields such as synthetic biology. Harnessing the potential of synthetic biology requires timely and adequate translation into clinical practice. However, the translational research enterprise is currently facing fundamental obstacles that slow down the transition of scientific discoveries from the laboratory to the patient bedside. These obstacles including scarce financial resources and deficiency of organizational and logistic settings are widely discussed as primary impediments to translational research. In addition, a number of socio-ethical considerations inherent in translational research need to be addressed. As the translational capacity of synthetic biology is tightly linked to its social acceptance and ethical approval, ethical limitations may-together with financial and organizational problems-be co-determinants of suboptimal translation. Therefore, an early assessment of such limitations will contribute to proactively favor successful translation and prevent the promising potential of synthetic biology from remaining under-expressed. Through the discussion of two case-specific inventions in synthetic biology and their associated ethical implications, we illustrate the socio-ethical challenges ahead in the process of implementing synthetic biology into clinical practice. Since reducing the translational lag is essential for delivering the benefits of basic biomedical research to society at large and promoting global health, we advocate a moral obligation to accelerating translational research: the "translational imperative."

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Engineering 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 16 28%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#21,420,714
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#912
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#382,985
of 446,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 446,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.