MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410551380 · doi:10.1089/crispr.2025.0058

A Reset for Bioethics: A Statement from the Global Observatory for Genome Editing

2025· article· en· W4410551380 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe CRISPR Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsRoyal Society of CanadaRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)Reset (finance)BioethicsObservatoryGenome editingGenomeComputer scienceComputational biologyBiologyEpistemologyPhilosophyAstronomyGeneticsPhysicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How should we govern our increasing power to intervene in the processes of life? Genome editing, especially of the human germline, has brought this question to the forefront of global debate. We must seek to rectify shortcomings of earlier deliberative approaches by setting aside a science-and-technology first approach; expanding the range of questions for deliberation; revisiting the distribution of innovation's benefits and risks; and reimagining the limits of research. This Perspective from the Organizing Committee of the 2025 Global Observatory for Genome Editing International Summit calls for a new social compact, recognizing and rendering accountable the constitutive role of science and technology in shaping the meaning of human life in the 21st century.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it