↓ Skip to main content

Artificial gametes: perspectives of geneticists, ethicists and representatives of potential users

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
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.
Title
Artificial gametes: perspectives of geneticists, ethicists and representatives of potential users
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, December 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11019-013-9535-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Cutas, Wybo Dondorp, Tsjalling Swierstra, Sjoerd Repping, Guido de Wert

Abstract

Several threads of research towards developing artificial gametes are ongoing in a number of research labs worldwide. The development of a technology that could generate gametes in vitro has significant potential for human reproduction, and raises a lot of interest, as evidenced by the frequent and extensive media coverage of research in this area. We have asked researchers involved in work with artificial gametes, ethicists, and representatives of potential user groups, how they envisioned the use of artificial gametes in human reproduction. In the course of three focus groups, the participants commented on the various aspects involved. The two recurring themes were the strength of the claim of becoming a parent genetically, and the importance of responsible communication of science. The participants concurred that (a) the desire or need to have genetic offspring of one's own does not warrant the investment of research resources into these technologies, and that (b) given the minefield in terms of moral controversy and sensitivity that characterises the issues involved, how information is communicated and handled is of great importance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Master 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 27%
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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,289,831
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#375
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,439
of 306,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 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 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. 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 306,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.