↓ Skip to main content

Science and Bioethics of CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing: An Analysis Towards Separating Facts and Fiction.

Overview of attention for article published in Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
356 Mendeley
Title
Science and Bioethics of CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Editing: An Analysis Towards Separating Facts and Fiction.
Published in
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, December 2017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam P Cribbs, Sumeth M W Perera

Abstract

Since its emergence in 2012, the genome editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9 and its scientific use have rapidly expanded globally within a very short period of time. The technique consists of using an RNA guide molecule to bind to complementary DNA sequences, which simultaneously recruits the endonuclease Cas9 to introduce double-stranded breaks in the target DNA. The resulting double-stranded break is then repaired, allowing modification or removal of specific DNA bases. The technique has gained momentum in the laboratory because it is cheap, quick, and easy to use. Moreover, it is also being applied in vivo to generate more complex animal model systems. Such use of genome editing has proven to be highly effective and warrants a potential therapy for both genetic and non-genetic diseases. Although genome editing has the potential to be a transformative therapy for patients it is still in its infancy. Consequently, the legal and ethical frameworks are yet to be fully discussed and will be an increasingly important topic as the technology moves towards more contentious issues such as modification of the germline. Here, we review a number of scientific and ethical issues which may potentially influence the development of both the technology and its use in the clinical setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 356 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 356 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 100 28%
Student > Master 53 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 6%
Researcher 19 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 3%
Other 38 11%
Unknown 113 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 108 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 8%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Engineering 9 3%
Other 51 14%
Unknown 118 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#7,359,319
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine
#328
of 918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,853
of 447,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 447,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.