↓ Skip to main content

Disease Resistance and the Definition of Genetic Enhancement

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
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.
Title
Disease Resistance and the Definition of Genetic Enhancement
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2017.00040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Derek So, Erika Kleiderman, Seydina B Touré, Yann Joly

Abstract

Recent gene editing experiments carried out in human embryos have raised the question of whether interventions like the introduction of a CCR5-Δ32 deletion, which could provide heritable resistance to HIV infection, ought to be considered enhancements. Many authors have used the term "enhancement" in different ways, some based on patients' biomedical outcomes and others on their social context. These classifications are often considered overly imprecise. Nevertheless, the concept of "enhancement" could affect the ways in which these applications are regulated in different jurisdictions, the availability of coverage by insurers or public health care, and the force of public opinion in shaping future policy on gene editing. In order to ethically situate resistance to communicable disease with reference to other techniques, this article provides an overview of its similarities and differences with disease gene therapy in embryos, gene therapy in consenting adults, and vaccination. In discussing key ethical features of CCR5-Δ32 deletion (including its frequency in various populations, biological mechanism, benefits for individuals, and use in previous clinical trials) we offer some potential guideposts for the continuing discussion on how to classify "enhancements" in the age of CRISPR gene editing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 31%
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Other 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Philosophy 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,179,534
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#815
of 13,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,521
of 325,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#9
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,773 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 325,536 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.