| Title |
Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Briefings in Functional Genomics, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1093/bfgp/elv053 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tetsuya Ishii |
| Abstract |
Genome editing allows for the versatile genetic modification of somatic cells, germ cells and embryos. In particular, CRISPR/Cas9 is worldwide used in biomedical research. Although the first report on Cas9-mediated gene modification in human embryos focused on the prevention of a genetic disease in offspring, it raised profound ethical and social concerns over the safety of subsequent generations and the potential misuse of genome editing for human enhancement. The present article considers germ line genome editing approaches from various clinical and ethical viewpoints and explores its objectives. The risks and benefits of the following three likely objectives are assessed: the prevention of monogenic diseases, personalized assisted reproductive technology (ART) and genetic enhancement. Although genetic enhancement should be avoided, the international regulatory landscape suggests the inevitability of this misuse at ART centers. Under these circumstances, possible regulatory responses and the potential roles of public dialogue are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 | 6 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 19% |
| Japan | 4 | 15% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| Papua New Guinea | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 59% |
| Scientists | 8 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 173 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 32% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 18% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 9% |
| Unknown | 38 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 43 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 11% |
| Engineering | 9 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 05 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,109,992
of 23,978,545 outputs
Outputs from Briefings in Functional Genomics
#11
of 464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,518
of 394,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Briefings in Functional Genomics
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,978,545 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 394,690 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 99% of its contemporaries.