ReviewAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Prenatal gene editing for neurodevelopmental diseases: Ethical considerations.
Review in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considering seriousness in preconception carrier screening: a framework to support policy deliberation.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Construction of Sui Generis Supervision System for Gene-Edited Animals in China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Toward precision correction of OTUD5-mediated deubiquitylation defect in LINKED syndrome: a gene-editing paradigm for embryonic chromatin-remodeller disorders.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Prenatal therapies: a Points to Consider framework for responsible innovation.BMC medical genomics · 2025Review
- Precision diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Maximizing Diagnostic Yield in Intellectual Disability Through Exome Sequencing: Genotype-Phenotype Insights in a Vietnamese Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- CRISPR-Cas technologies in neurodegenerative disorders: mechanistic insights, therapeutic potential, and translational challenges.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neurodevelopmental diseases (NDDs) are notoriously difficult to treat because clinical symptoms stem from developmental processes that begin before birth. Prenatal gene editing could fill the treatment gap for NDDs by targeting and permanently correcting the genetic variants that underlie these pathogenic developmental processes. At the same time, there is a risk of unintended edits to the fetus or the pregnant person that could result in serious adverse consequences that are difficult, if not impossible, to undo. This raises ethical concerns that make the development of prenatal gene editing especially challenging. To date, there are no frameworks for considering the steps necessary for an ethical path forward for prenatal gene editing specifically. The 60-year history of in utero therapy has included the development of frameworks for other therapies that can provide starting points for addressing the unique issues of prenatal gene editing. We identified 12 themes from 17 ethical frameworks, literature, consensus statements, and government reports on prenatal interventions that could set precedents for prenatal gene editing interventions. In considering these alongside current criteria for postnatal gene therapies for NDDs, we discuss a path forward for prenatal gene editing interventions of NDDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.