↓ Skip to main content

In risk we trust/Editing embryos and mirroring future risks and uncertainties

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
In risk we trust/Editing embryos and mirroring future risks and uncertainties
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11019-018-9851-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Šlesingerová

Abstract

Tendencies and efforts have shifted from genome description, DNA mapping, and DNA sequencing to active and profound re-programming, repairing life on genetic and molecular levels in some parts of contemporary life science research. Mirroring and materializing this atmosphere, various life engineering technologies have been used and established in many areas of life sciences in the last decades. A contemporary progressive example of one such technology is DNA editing. Novel developments related to reproductive technologies, particularly embryo editing, prenatal human life engineering, and germline engineering need to be analyzed against the broader social and structural background. The crucial analytical scope for this paper is a specific field: the life-editing technologies used in reproductive medicine and performed experimentally on viable human embryos, particularly CRISPR/Cas9 technology. This text argues that germline editing technologies, as a representative part of contemporary biomedicine, are merging ideas of treatment and enhancement to avoid future risks. Using this specific life manipulation of embryos and gametes, the text analyzes these processes within the concept of power over life-biopower and the specific governing rationality that imagines, classifies, and governs contemporary societies. The text specifically focuses on the potential to create, define, and manage future risks and uncertainties related to prenatal life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 15%
Philosophy 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 4 20%
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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#15,545,785
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#378
of 596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,662
of 341,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 341,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.