↓ Skip to main content

Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good

Overview of attention for article published in Human Genomics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good
Published in
Human Genomics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40246-017-0116-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Capps, Ruth Chadwick, Yann Joly, John J. Mulvihill, Tamra Lysaght, Hub Zwart

Abstract

This paper considers the tensions created in genomic research by public and private for-profit ideals. Our intent is to strengthen the public good at a time when doing science is strongly motivated by market possibilities and opportunities. Focusing on the emergence of gene editing, and in particular CRISPR, we consider how commercialisation encourages hype and hope-a sense that only promise and idealism can achieve progress. At this rate, genomic research reinforces structures that promote, above all else, private interests, but that may attenuate conditions for the public good of science. In the first part, we situate genomics using the aphorism that 'on the shoulders of giants we see farther'; these giants are infrastructures and research cultures rather than individual 'heroes' of science. In this respect, private initiatives are not the only pivot for successful discovery, and indeed, fascination in those could impinge upon the fundamental role of public-supported discovery. To redress these circumstances, we define the extent to which progress presupposes research strategies that are for the public good. In the second part, we use a 'falling giant' narrative to illustrate the risks of over-indulging for-profit initiatives. We therefore offer a counterpoint to commercialised science, using three identifiable 'giants'-scientists, publics and cultures-to illustrate how the public good contributes to genomic discovery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Human Genomics
#389
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,529
of 323,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genomics
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 323,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.