These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
4. The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research. Davies G; Gorman R; McGlacken R; Peres S Lab Anim; 2022 Feb; 56(1):88-96. PubMed ID: 33596730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A Q methodology study on divergent perspectives on CRISPR-Cas9 in the Netherlands. Schuijff M; De Jong MDT; Dijkstra AM BMC Med Ethics; 2021 Apr; 22(1):48. PubMed ID: 33902573 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Science communication in transition: genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures. Bubela T Clin Genet; 2006 Nov; 70(5):445-50. PubMed ID: 17026631 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Guidelines, editors, pharma and the biological paradigm shift. Singh AR; Singh SA Mens Sana Monogr; 2007 Jan; 5(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 22058616 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Science and the sources of hype. Caulfield T; Condit C Public Health Genomics; 2012; 15(3-4):209-17. PubMed ID: 22488464 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Ethical issues of CRISPR technology and gene editing through the lens of solidarity. Mulvihill JJ; Capps B; Joly Y; Lysaght T; Zwart HAE; Chadwick R; Br Med Bull; 2017 Jun; 122(1):17-29. PubMed ID: 28334154 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Credit for and Control of Research Outputs in Genomic Citizen Science. Guerrini CJ; Contreras JL Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet; 2020 Aug; 21():465-489. PubMed ID: 32873078 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Genome editing: science, ethics, and public engagement. The Lancet Lancet; 2017 Aug; 390(10095):625. PubMed ID: 28816123 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. The ethics of access to online genetic databases: private or public? Marks AD; Steinberg KK Am J Pharmacogenomics; 2002; 2(3):207-12. PubMed ID: 12383027 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. AMA Policies and Code of Medical Ethics Opinions Related to Human Genome Editing. Scheper A AMA J Ethics; 2019 Dec; 21(12):E1056-1058. PubMed ID: 31876469 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Where Will We Draw the Line? Public Opinions of Human Gene Editing. Riggan KA; Sharp RR; Allyse M Qual Health Res; 2019 Oct; 29(12):1823-1835. PubMed ID: 31057062 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Public engagement and communication: who is in charge? Boëte C EMBO Rep; 2018 Jan; 19(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 29247079 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The impact of commercialisation on public perceptions of stem cell research: exploring differences across the use of induced pluripotent cells, human and animal embryos. Critchley CR; Bruce G; Farrugia M Stem Cell Rev Rep; 2013 Oct; 9(5):541-54. PubMed ID: 23695820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Rethink public engagement for gene editing. Burall S Nature; 2018 Mar; 555(7697):438-439. PubMed ID: 29565402 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The Impact of CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genomic Engineering on Biomedical Research and Medicine. Go DE; Stottmann RW Curr Mol Med; 2016; 16(4):343-52. PubMed ID: 26980700 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Everything in moderation, even hype: learning from vaccine controversies to strike a balance with CRISPR. Benston S J Med Ethics; 2017 Dec; 43(12):819-823. PubMed ID: 28473627 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]