↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2006
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-1-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B Resnik, Daniel B Vorhaus

Abstract

In this article we examine four objections to the genetic modification of human beings: the freedom argument, the giftedness argument, the authenticity argument, and the uniqueness argument. We then demonstrate that each of these arguments against genetic modification assumes a strong version of genetic determinism. Since these strong deterministic assumptions are false, the arguments against genetic modification, which assume and depend upon these assumptions, are therefore unsound. Serious discussion of the morality of genetic modification, and the development of sound science policy, should be driven by arguments that address the actual consequences of genetic modification for individuals and society, not by ones propped up by false or misleading biological assumptions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Brazil 2 2%
Kenya 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 106 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 44 39%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Other 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Philosophy 9 8%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Other 28 25%
Unknown 13 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,745,685
of 19,151,080 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#108
of 203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,352
of 270,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,151,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 270,753 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.