| Title |
Gene Editing in Humans: Towards a Global and Inclusive Debate for Responsible Research.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, December 2017
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Itziar de Lecuona, María Casado, Gemma Marfany, Manuel Lopez Baroni, Mar Escarrabill |
| Abstract |
In December 2016, the Opinion Group of the Bioethics and Law Observatory (OBD) of the University of Barcelona launched a Declaration on Bioethics and Gene Editing in Humans analyzing the use of genome editing techniques and their social, ethical, and legal implications through a multidisciplinary approach. It focuses on CRISPR/Cas9, a genome modification technique that enables researchers to edit specific sections of the DNA sequence of humans and other living beings. This technique has generated expectations and worries that deserve an interdisciplinary analysis and an informed social debate. The research work developed by the OBD presents a set of recommendations addressed to different stakeholders and aims at being a tool to learn more about CRISPR/Cas9 while finding an appropriate ethical and legal framework for this new technology. This article gathers and compares reports that have been published in Europe and the USA since the OBD Declaration. It aims at being a tool to foster a global and interdisciplinary discussion of this new genome editing technology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 133 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 39 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 37 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 44 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,563,293
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine
#225
of 918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,645
of 448,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 16.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 448,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.