Article info
PDFResponse
‘Serious’ factor—a relevant starting point for further debate: a response
- Correspondence to Erika Kleiderman, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0G4, Canada; erika.kleiderman{at}mcgill.ca
Citation
‘Serious’ factor—a relevant starting point for further debate: a response
Publication history
- Received September 6, 2019
- Revised October 7, 2019
- Accepted October 23, 2019
- First published November 6, 2019.
Online issue publication
February 07, 2020
Article Versions
- Previous version (7 February 2020).
- 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)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- The ‘serious’ factor in germline modification
- Birth defects surveillance after assisted reproductive technology in Beijing: a whole of population-based cohort study
- Preimplantation genetic testing for a chr14q32 microdeletion in a family with Kagami-Ogata syndrome and Temple syndrome
- Is the ‘serious’ factor in germline modification really relevant? A response to Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers
- Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing
- Fertility treatment for people with epilepsy
- Scientists, bioethics and democracy: the Italian case and its meanings
- Assisted reproductive technologies do not enhance the variability of DNA methylation imprints in human
- Risk of prostate cancer for men fathering through assisted reproduction: nationwide population based register study
- ‘Serious’ science: a response to Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers