Are we ready to genetically modify a human embryo? Or is it too late to ask?

Matthews, Kirstin R.W.; Iltis, Ana S.

doi:10.1080/08989621.2019.1617139

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While scientists can do research on human embryos, and even work beyond 14 days, these restrictions and guidelines still represent significant barriers. However, this could also allow a rogue scientist to do questionable work with human embryos without regard for public opinion on the ethical and scientific validity of the research, similar to what has controversially occurred already with germ-line editing of a human embryo [87]. Furthermore, there has been no clear guidance to US scientists regarding the Dickey-Wicker Amendment's effect on federal funding for human embryoid research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the emergence of China in the past decade as a major player in R&D, new perspectives related to the ethics of human embryo research will arise, beyond the Judeo-Christian beliefs that dominated the USA and UK discussions on the subject in the past [11,12]. However, recent concerns related to heritable germline modification of human embryos could delay expansion for human embryo research beyond day 14 [87]. In contrast, human embryoid research faces less obstacles for expansion, especially if it is seen as an ethical alternative to human embryo research and allowed to continue without political restrictions.…”

Section: Future Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

National Human Embryo and Embryoid Research Policies: A Survey of 22 Top Research-Intensive Countries

Matthews

Moralí

2020

Regen. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research using human embryos and embryoids has expanded in recent years due to technological advances. Surveying laws and guidelines among the top research and development (R&D) investing nations highlights existing barriers to expanding this area of research. Of the 22 nations surveyed, we found 12 countries with a 14-day limit, one with a seven-day limit, five with prohibitions and four without national laws or guidelines that limit or prohibit human embryo research. Sixteen national laws or guidelines define an embryo or related entities, with five nations limiting human embryoid research. Other laws are ambiguous in relation to embryoid research, leave unanswered questions regarding what research is permitted or restricted and need additional clarity for researchers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Future Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

National Human Embryo and Embryoid Research Policies: A Survey of 22 Top Research-Intensive Countries

Matthews

Moralí

2020

Regen. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research has found that in the field of surgical technique, many surgeons underestimate the importance of obtaining and reporting ethical approval and that there is much room for improving the reporting of ethical approval ( 66 , 68 , 69 ). Research conducted without ethical approval or even falsified ethical approval documents is at great risk ( 70 ).…”

Section: Super Explanation and Elaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration

Zhang¹,

Wu²,

Su³

et al. 2023

Gland Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Surgical technique plays an essential role in achieving good health outcomes. However, the quality of surgical technique reporting remains heterogeneous. Reporting checklists could help authors to describe the surgical technique more transparently and effectively, as well as to assist reviewers and editors evaluate it more informatively, and promote readers to better understand the technique. We previously developed SUPER (surgical technique reporting checklist and standards) to assist authors in reporting their research that contains surgical technique more transparently. However, further explanation and elaboration of each item are needed for better understanding and reporting practice. Methods We searched surgical literature in PubMed, Google Scholar and journal websites published up to January 2023 to find multidiscipline examples in various article types for each SUPER item. Results We explain the 22 items of the SUPER and provide rationales item by item alongside. We provide 69 examples from 53 literature that present optimal reporting of the 22 items. Article types of examples include pure surgical technique, and case reports, observational studies and clinical trials that contain surgical technique. Examples are multidisciplinary, including general surgery, orthopaedical surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, gastrointestinal surgery, neurological surgery, oncogenic surgery, and emergency surgery etc. Conclusions Along with SUPER article, this explanation and elaboration file can promote deeper understanding on the SUPER items. We hope that the article could further guide surgeons and researchers in reporting, and assist editors and peer reviewers in reviewing manuscripts related to surgical technique.

show abstract

“…When scientists move beyond what the public deems acceptable, public backlash can be significant and at times could also undermine research the public otherwise would deem legitimate, such as the use of CRISPR on adult somatic cells which do not contribute to the germline. Following the 2018 incident, many scholars called for further discussions regarding acceptable practices regarding HHGE as well as increased public or stakeholder engagement (PSE) on what research should and should not be conducted (Hurlbut et al, 2018;Saha et al, 2018;Hurlbut, 2019;Lander et al, 2019;Matthews and Iltis, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public and Stakeholder Engagement in Developing Human Heritable Genome Editing Policies: What Does it Mean and What Should it Mean?

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As scientific research pushes the boundaries of knowledge, new discoveries and technologies often raise ethical and social questions. Public responses vary from surprise, to unrealistic optimism about imminent new treatments, confusion, and absolute opposition. Regardless of the intent, the use of a precise gene editing tool on human embryos, such as CRISPR-Cas9, is an example of such a controversial emerging technology. Substantive disagreement about the appropriate research pathways and permissible clinical applications is to be expected. Many ethical concerns, especially related to genetic manipulation of human embryos, are rooted in deeply held moral, religious, or ideological beliefs that science alone cannot address. Today, more scientists and scientific societies as well as policy makers are calling for public and stakeholder engagement in developing guidelines and policies governing scientific practice. We conducted a critical interpretive review of the literature on public and stakeholder engagement in science policy development regarding emerging technologies to determine the ideals that should guide engagement efforts of entities developing recommendations or guidelines on policy for such technologies. We identify and describe five ideals. To illustrate possible applications of these ideals, we review the engagement efforts described in three reports on heritable human genome editing and assess those efforts in light of these ideals. Finally, we recommend possible avenues for engagement that would advance those goals.

show abstract

Are we ready to genetically modify a human embryo? Or is it too late to ask?

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

National Human Embryo and Embryoid Research Policies: A Survey of 22 Top Research-Intensive Countries

National Human Embryo and Embryoid Research Policies: A Survey of 22 Top Research-Intensive Countries

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration

Public and Stakeholder Engagement in Developing Human Heritable Genome Editing Policies: What Does it Mean and What Should it Mean?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About