Article info
PDFCommentary
Genome editing, Goldilocks and polygenic risk scores
- Correspondence to Professor Julian Savulescu, Faculty of Philosophy, The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK; julian.savulescu{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Citation
Genome editing, Goldilocks and polygenic risk scores
Publication history
- Received July 16, 2019
- Accepted July 16, 2019
- First published July 26, 2019.
Online issue publication
August 27, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 August 2019).
- Previous version (27 August 2019).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report
- Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing
- The moral argument for heritable genome editing requires an inappropriately deterministic view of genetics
- Guerrilla eugenics: gene drives in heritable human genome editing
- Heritable human genome editing is ‘currently not permitted’, but it is no longer ‘prohibited’: so says the ISSCR
- Goldilocks and the two principles. A response to Gyngell et al
- We need to talk about imperatives
- Intergenerational monitoring in clinical trials of germline gene editing
- CRISPR-Cas9: a new and promising player in gene therapy
- Performance of polygenic risk scores in screening, prediction, and risk stratification: secondary analysis of data in the Polygenic Score Catalog