You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Is Editing the Genome for Climate Change Adaptation Ethically Justifiable?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.stas1-1712 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa Soleymani Lehmann |
| Abstract |
As climate change progresses, we humans might have to inhabit a world for which we are increasingly maladapted. If we were able to identify genes that directly influence our ability to thrive in a changing climate, would it be ethically justifiable to edit the human genome to enhance our ability to adapt to this new environment? Should we use gene editing not only to prevent significant disease but also to enhance our ability to function in the world? Here I suggest a "4-S framework" for analyzing the justifiability of gene editing that includes these considerations: (1) safety, (2) significance of harm to be averted, (3) succeeding generations, and (4) social consequences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 | 10 | 22% |
| Belgium | 3 | 7% |
| Canada | 3 | 7% |
| Spain | 3 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 7% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 80% |
| Scientists | 4 | 9% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 35% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 4 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |