↓ Skip to main content

One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Human Genetics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
48 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
Title
One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans
Published in
European Journal of Human Genetics, November 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41431-017-0024-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi C. Howard, Carla G. van El, Francesca Forzano, Dragica Radojkovic, Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag, Guido de Wert, Pascal Borry, Martina C. Cornel, on behalf of the Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics

Abstract

Gene editing, which allows for specific location(s) in the genome to be targeted and altered by deleting, adding or substituting nucleotides, is currently the subject of important academic and policy discussions. With the advent of efficient tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, the plausibility of using gene editing safely in humans for either somatic or germ line gene editing is being considered seriously. Beyond safety issues, somatic gene editing in humans does raise ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI), however, it is suggested to be less challenging to existing ethical and legal frameworks; indeed somatic gene editing is already applied in (pre-) clinical trials. In contrast, the notion of altering the germ line or embryo such that alterations could be heritable in humans raises a large number of ELSI; it is currently debated whether it should even be allowed in the context of basic research. Even greater ELSI debates address the potential use of germ line or embryo gene editing for clinical purposes, which, at the moment is not being conducted and is prohibited in several jurisdictions. In the context of these ongoing debates surrounding gene editing, we present herein guidance to further discussion and investigation by highlighting three crucial areas that merit the most attention, time and resources at this stage in the responsible development and use of gene editing technologies: (1) conducting careful scientific research and disseminating results to build a solid evidence base; (2) conducting ethical, legal and social issues research; and (3) conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement, education and dialogue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 26%
Student > Master 31 16%
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 3%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 46 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 11%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 55 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#745,986
of 25,363,685 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Human Genetics
#81
of 3,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,862
of 445,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Human Genetics
#2
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,363,685 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 445,834 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.