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
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ethical and Philosophical Considerations for Gain-of-Function Policy: The Importance of Alternate Experiments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Greig Evans |
| Abstract |
The Department of Health and Human Services Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (PPPs) contains a series of principles for governing the funding and conduct of gain-of-function (GOF) research resulting in the creation of PPPs. In this article, I address one of these principles, governing the replacement of GOF research with alternate experiments. I argue that the principle fails to address the way that different experiments can promote the same values as those promoted by GOF research resulting in PPPs. I then address some objections to this claim, and provide policy recommendations moving forward. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 | 9 | 24% |
| Japan | 2 | 5% |
| France | 2 | 5% |
| Portugal | 2 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 84% |
| Scientists | 5 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 16% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 25% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 11 March 2024.
All research outputs
#983,608
of 25,468,789 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#80
of 8,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,290
of 448,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,789 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,544 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 448,322 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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.