| Title |
Ethical and regulatory aspects of genome editing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Blood, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1182/blood-2016-01-678136 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald B Kohn, Matthew H Porteus, Andrew M Scharenberg |
| Abstract |
Gene editing is a rapidly developing area of biotechnology in which the nucleotide sequence of the genome of living cells is precisely changed. The use of genome editing technologies to modify various types of blood cells, including hematopoietic stem cells, has emerged as an important field of therapeutic development for hematopoietic disease. While these technologies offer the potential for generation of transformative therapies for patients suffering from myriad disorders of hematopoiesis, their application for therapeutic modification of primary human cells is still in its infancy. Consequently, development of ethical and regulatory frameworks that ensure their safe and effective use is an increasingly important consideration. Here, we review a number of issues that have the potential to impact the clinical implementation of genome editing technologies, and suggest paths forward for resolving them such that new therapies can be safely and rapidly translated to the clinic. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 198 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 40 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 13% |
| Researcher | 23 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 39 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 62 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 13% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 42 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,308,455
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Blood
#6,629
of 33,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,117
of 318,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Blood
#95
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 33,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 318,645 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 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 63% of its contemporaries.