You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Mitochondrial replacement techniques: egg donation, genealogy and eugenics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Monash Bioethics Review, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40592-016-0059-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
César Palacios-González |
| Abstract |
Several objections against the morality of researching or employing mitochondrial replacement techniques have been advanced recently. In this paper, I examine three of these objections and show that they are found wanting. First I examine whether mitochondrial replacement techniques, research and clinical practice, should not be carried out because of possible harms to egg donors. Next I assess whether mitochondrial replacement techniques should be banned because they could affect the study of genealogical ancestry. Finally, I examine the claim that mitochondrial replacement techniques are not transferring mitochondrial DNA but nuclear DNA, and that this should be prohibited on ethical grounds. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 32% |
| Mexico | 4 | 18% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Argentina | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Norway | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Scientists | 4 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 07 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,389,878
of 25,382,035 outputs
Outputs from Monash Bioethics Review
#14
of 162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,101
of 379,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Monash Bioethics Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 379,310 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them