| Title |
Ethical Issues Regarding CRISPR Mediated Genome Editing.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current issues in intestinal microbiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.21775/cimb.026.103 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zabta Khan Shinwari, Faouzia Tanveer, Ali Talha Khalil |
| Abstract |
CRISPR-Cas9 has emerged as a simple, precise and most rapid genome editing technology. With a number of promising applications ranging from agriculture and environment to clinical therapeutics, it is greatly transforming the field of molecular biology. However, there are certain ethical, moral and safety concerns related to the attractive applications of this technique. The most contentious issues concerning human germline modifications are the challenges to human safety and morality such as risk of unforeseen, undesirable effects in clinical applications particularly to correct or prevent genetic diseases, matter of informed consent and the risk of exploitation for eugenics. Stringent regulations and guidelines as well as worldwide debate and awareness are required to ensure responsible and wise use of CRISPR mediated genome editing technology. There is a need for an extensive dialogue among scientists, ethicists, industrialists and policy makers on its societal implications. The opinion of different elements of the society including the general public as well as religious scholars is also critical. In countries with existing legislative framework, it might be appropriate to allow CRISPR based research to proceed with proper justification. However, much anticipated future clinical applications must be strictly regulated with newly established regulations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 209 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 3% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 124 | 59% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 34 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 124 | 59% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 September 2023.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Current issues in intestinal microbiology
#315
of 1,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,873
of 323,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current issues in intestinal microbiology
#9
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 323,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.