| Title |
Proceedings of the International Summit on Human Gene Editing: a global discussion—Washington, D.C., December 1–3, 2015
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10815-016-0753-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew R. LaBarbera |
| Abstract |
The US Academies of Sciences and Medicine, the Royal Society, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences convened a summit of experts in biology, medicine, law, ethics, sociology, and journalism, in December 2015 to review the state of the art in gene editing technology and discuss the medical and social ramifications of the technologies. The summit concluded with the following consensus recommendations: (1) intensive basic and preclinical research in animal and human models should proceed with appropriate legal and ethical oversight; (2) clinical applications in somatic cells must be rigorously evaluated within existing and evolving regulatory frameworks for gene therapy; (3) it would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing until relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved and there is broad societal consensus about such a use; and (4) the international community should strive to establish generally acceptable uses of human germline editing. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,611,252
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
#1,199
of 1,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,314
of 346,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 346,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.