| Title |
Chloe’s Law: A Powerful Legislative Movement Challenging a Core Ethical Norm of Genetic Testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Biology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002219 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arthur L. Caplan |
| Abstract |
Since the early 1970s, the ethical norm governing counselors involved in testing and screening for genetic conditions related to reproduction has been strict neutrality. Counseling about reproductive genetics was to be patient centered but nondirective. Many advocates for people with Down syndrome believe that high abortion rates following a diagnosis of this condition show an unfounded bias against those with Down syndrome. These advocates have succeeded in enacting federal and state legislation that requires women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome to receive positive information about the condition, thereby ending the nominal goal of value-neutral counseling and setting the stage for further normative shifts in clinical reproductive genetics as counseling expands because of cell-free testing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 19 | 32% |
| Canada | 4 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 7% |
| Ireland | 3 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Chad | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 40 | 67% |
| Scientists | 13 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#408,835
of 25,611,630 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Biology
#834
of 9,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,569
of 275,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Biology
#20
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,611,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 275,895 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.