Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.
Identifieur interne : 002C95 ( Ncbi/Merge ); précédent : 002C94; suivant : 002C96Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.
Auteurs : Michael J. Selgelid [Australie]Source :
- Science and engineering ethics [ 1471-5546 ] ; 2016.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- MESH :
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- ethics : Decision Making, Public Health.
- standards : Research.
- statistics & numerical data : Research.
- Ethical Analysis, Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Risk Assessment, United States.
Abstract
Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a "pause" on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a "deliberative process" regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions-and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter. As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide (1) review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR, (2) identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to (i) the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR, (ii) decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and (iii) the development of US policy regarding GOFR (especially with respect to funding of GOFR), and (3) development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations (especially regarding policy decisions about funding of GOFR in particular). The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse (as opposed to there being necessary conditions that are either satisfied or not satisfied, where all must be satisfied in order for a given case of GOFR to be considered ethically acceptable): research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance (i.e., democracy), evidence, and international outlook and engagement. Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum-where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable (perhaps even ethically praiseworthy or ethically obligatory), at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable (and thus should not be funded, or conducted), at the other. The aim should be that any GOFR pursued (and/or funded) should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum.
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1
PubMed: 27502512
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream PubMed, to step Corpus: 000C21
- to stream PubMed, to step Curation: 000C21
- to stream PubMed, to step Checkpoint: 000C52
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:27502512Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Selgelid, Michael J" sort="Selgelid, Michael J" uniqKey="Selgelid M" first="Michael J" last="Selgelid">Michael J. Selgelid</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="3"><nlm:affiliation>Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. michael.selgelid@monash.edu.</nlm:affiliation>
<country xml:lang="fr">Australie</country>
<wicri:regionArea>Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne</wicri:regionArea>
<placeName><settlement type="city">Melbourne</settlement>
<region type="état">Victoria (État)</region>
</placeName>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="2016">2016</date>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:27502512</idno>
<idno type="pmid">27502512</idno>
<idno type="doi">10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000C21</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000C21</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">000C21</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">000C21</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">000C52</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">000C52</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Merge">002C95</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Selgelid, Michael J" sort="Selgelid, Michael J" uniqKey="Selgelid M" first="Michael J" last="Selgelid">Michael J. Selgelid</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="3"><nlm:affiliation>Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. michael.selgelid@monash.edu.</nlm:affiliation>
<country xml:lang="fr">Australie</country>
<wicri:regionArea>Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne</wicri:regionArea>
<placeName><settlement type="city">Melbourne</settlement>
<region type="état">Victoria (État)</region>
</placeName>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">Science and engineering ethics</title>
<idno type="eISSN">1471-5546</idno>
<imprint><date when="2016" type="published">2016</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Decision Making (ethics)</term>
<term>Ethical Analysis</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>National Institutes of Health (U.S.)</term>
<term>Public Health (ethics)</term>
<term>Research (standards)</term>
<term>Research (statistics & numerical data)</term>
<term>Risk Assessment</term>
<term>United States</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Analyse éthique</term>
<term>Humains</term>
<term>National Institutes of Health (USA)</term>
<term>Prise de décision (éthique)</term>
<term>Recherche ()</term>
<term>Recherche (normes)</term>
<term>Santé publique (éthique)</term>
<term>États-Unis d'Amérique</term>
<term>Évaluation des risques</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="ethics" xml:lang="en"><term>Decision Making</term>
<term>Public Health</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="normes" xml:lang="fr"><term>Recherche</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="standards" xml:lang="en"><term>Research</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="statistics & numerical data" xml:lang="en"><term>Research</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="éthique" xml:lang="fr"><term>Prise de décision</term>
<term>Santé publique</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Ethical Analysis</term>
<term>Humans</term>
<term>National Institutes of Health (U.S.)</term>
<term>Risk Assessment</term>
<term>United States</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Analyse éthique</term>
<term>Humains</term>
<term>National Institutes of Health (USA)</term>
<term>Recherche</term>
<term>États-Unis d'Amérique</term>
<term>Évaluation des risques</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a "pause" on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a "deliberative process" regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions-and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter. As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide (1) review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR, (2) identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to (i) the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR, (ii) decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and (iii) the development of US policy regarding GOFR (especially with respect to funding of GOFR), and (3) development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations (especially regarding policy decisions about funding of GOFR in particular). The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse (as opposed to there being necessary conditions that are either satisfied or not satisfied, where all must be satisfied in order for a given case of GOFR to be considered ethically acceptable): research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance (i.e., democracy), evidence, and international outlook and engagement. Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum-where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable (perhaps even ethically praiseworthy or ethically obligatory), at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable (and thus should not be funded, or conducted), at the other. The aim should be that any GOFR pursued (and/or funded) should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" IndexingMethod="Curated" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">27502512</PMID>
<DateCompleted><Year>2018</Year>
<Month>02</Month>
<Day>02</Day>
</DateCompleted>
<DateRevised><Year>2020</Year>
<Month>03</Month>
<Day>06</Day>
</DateRevised>
<Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1471-5546</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>22</Volume>
<Issue>4</Issue>
<PubDate><Year>2016</Year>
<Month>08</Month>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>Science and engineering ethics</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>Sci Eng Ethics</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination><MedlinePgn>923-964</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1</ELocationID>
<Abstract><AbstractText>Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a "pause" on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a "deliberative process" regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions-and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter. As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide (1) review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR, (2) identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to (i) the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR, (ii) decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and (iii) the development of US policy regarding GOFR (especially with respect to funding of GOFR), and (3) development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations (especially regarding policy decisions about funding of GOFR in particular). The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse (as opposed to there being necessary conditions that are either satisfied or not satisfied, where all must be satisfied in order for a given case of GOFR to be considered ethically acceptable): research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance (i.e., democracy), evidence, and international outlook and engagement. Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum-where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable (perhaps even ethically praiseworthy or ethically obligatory), at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable (and thus should not be funded, or conducted), at the other. The aim should be that any GOFR pursued (and/or funded) should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum.</AbstractText>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Selgelid</LastName>
<ForeName>Michael J</ForeName>
<Initials>MJ</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. michael.selgelid@monash.edu.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
<ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2016</Year>
<Month>08</Month>
<Day>08</Day>
</ArticleDate>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo><Country>England</Country>
<MedlineTA>Sci Eng Ethics</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>9516228</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>1353-3452</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<CitationSubset>E</CitationSubset>
<CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset>
<MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003657" MajorTopicYN="N">Decision Making</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000941" MajorTopicYN="N">ethics</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D026689" MajorTopicYN="Y">Ethical Analysis</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D009316" MajorTopicYN="N">National Institutes of Health (U.S.)</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011634" MajorTopicYN="N">Public Health</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000941" MajorTopicYN="Y">ethics</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D012106" MajorTopicYN="N">Research</DescriptorName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000592" MajorTopicYN="Y">standards</QualifierName>
<QualifierName UI="Q000706" MajorTopicYN="N">statistics & numerical data</QualifierName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D018570" MajorTopicYN="N">Risk Assessment</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
<MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014481" MajorTopicYN="N">United States</DescriptorName>
</MeshHeading>
</MeshHeadingList>
<KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="Y">Biosafety</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="Y">Biosecurity</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="Y">Decision theory</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="Y">Dual-use research</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="Y">Gain-of-function research</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="Y">Risk-benefit assessment</Keyword>
</KeywordList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2016</Year>
<Month>02</Month>
<Day>25</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2016</Year>
<Month>06</Month>
<Day>12</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2016</Year>
<Month>8</Month>
<Day>10</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2016</Year>
<Month>8</Month>
<Day>10</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2018</Year>
<Month>2</Month>
<Day>3</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">27502512</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="pii">10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC4996883</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Front Public Health. 2014 Jul 14;2:84</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25072050</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>PLoS Med. 2015 Apr 14;12(4):e1001813</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25874461</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>J Virol. 2001 Feb;75(3):1205-10</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">11152493</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2013 Sep 05;8:12</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24006905</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2012 Oct 09;3(5):</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23047747</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>PLoS Med. 2014 May 20;11(5):e1001646</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">24844931</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Nature. 2012 May 02;486(7403):420-8</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">22722205</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2014 Dec 12;5(6):</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25505122</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2014 Oct 14;5(5):e01993-14</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25316700</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2014 Aug 01;5(4):e01730-14</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25085113</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Bioethics. 2016 Sep;30(7):479-89</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26990349</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1776-82</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">11684600</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>J Law Med Ethics. 2009 Winter;37(4):659-84</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">20122108</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Front Public Health. 2014 Oct 29;2:198</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25401097</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Front Public Health. 2014 Jul 16;2:77</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25077136</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Hastings Cent Rep. 2007 May-Jun;37(3):35-43</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17649901</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Hastings Cent Rep. 2013 Mar-Apr;43(2):22-33</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23390001</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>J Med Ethics. 2015 Nov;41(11):901-8</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26320212</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2013 Aug 20;4(4):</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23963181</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Science. 2002 Aug 9;297(5583):1016-8</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">12114528</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(3):429-45</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">8062401</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2015 Jan 23;6(1):</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25616376</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Science. 2014 Sep 5;345(6201):1112-5</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25190775</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2014 Oct 14;5(5):e02053-14</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25316702</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015 Jan;13(1):58-64</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25482289</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Monash Bioeth Rev. 2014 Sep-Dec;32(3-4):268-83</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25743058</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2014 Sep 16;5(5):e01875-14</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25227471</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2015 Jan 23;6(1):</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25616377</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2012 Nov 01;3(5):</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23047751</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Science. 2012 Jun 22;336(6088):1534-41</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">22723413</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Can J Public Health. 2002 Mar-Apr;93(2):101-3</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">11968179</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Bioethics. 2011 Jan;25(1):1-8</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19594724</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Public Health. 2009 Mar;123(3):255-9</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19223051</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Dec;13(4):523-80</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18060518</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Front Public Health. 2014 Sep 12;2:114</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25309890</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1700-4</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16609092</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Science. 2005 Oct 7;310(5745):77-80</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16210530</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2015 Jul 21;6(4):e01075</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26199335</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>mBio. 2015 Jan 20;6(1):</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25604793</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
<affiliations><list><country><li>Australie</li>
</country>
<region><li>Victoria (État)</li>
</region>
<settlement><li>Melbourne</li>
</settlement>
</list>
<tree><country name="Australie"><region name="Victoria (État)"><name sortKey="Selgelid, Michael J" sort="Selgelid, Michael J" uniqKey="Selgelid M" first="Michael J" last="Selgelid">Michael J. Selgelid</name>
</region>
</country>
</tree>
</affiliations>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/SrasV1/Data/Ncbi/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002C95 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 002C95 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Sante |area= SrasV1 |flux= Ncbi |étape= Merge |type= RBID |clé= pubmed:27502512 |texte= Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis. }}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:27502512" \ | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd \ | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a SrasV1
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. | ![]() |