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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The 2014 Varsity Medical Ethics Debate: should we allow genetic information to be patented?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-015-0028-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kiloran H.M. Metcalfe, Calum A. Worsley, Casey B. Swerner, Devan Sinha, Ravi Solanki, Krithi Ravi, Raj S. Dattani |
| Abstract |
The 2014 Varsity Medical Ethics debate convened upon the motion: "This house believes that genetic information should not be commoditised". This annual debate between students from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, now in its sixth year, provided the starting point for arguments on the subject. The present article brings together and extends many of the arguments put forward during the debate. We explore the circumstances under which genetic material should be considered patentable, the possible effects of this on the research and development of novel therapeutics, and the need for clear guidelines within this rapidly developing field.The Varsity Medical Debate was first held in 2008 with the aim of allowing students to engage in discussion about ethics and policy within healthcare. Two Oxford medical students, Mahiben Maruthappu and Sanjay Budheo founded the event. The event is held annually and it is hoped that this will allow future leaders to voice a perspective on the arguments behind topics that will feature heavily in future healthcare and science policy. This year the Oxford University Medical Society at the Oxford Union hosted the debate. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 38% |
| Researcher | 3 | 38% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 63% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#20,293,238
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#215
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,178
of 266,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 266,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.