Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Nat Biotechnol. 2017 Nov 9;35(11):1029-1042. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4015.

Revisiting the Warnock rule.

Author information

1
School of Life Sciences, Center for Biology and Society and School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
2
Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
3
School of Public Policy, Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
4
The Francis Crick Institute, London, UK.
5
Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Groningen, The Netherlands, and Department of Genetics, Church laboratory, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
6
Baker Institute Center for Health and Biosciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA.
7
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, UK.
8
Department of Reproductive Medicine, International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
9
The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine, USA.
10
Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
11
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, London, UK.
12
Honorary Fellow, Hertford College, University of Oxford, Catte Street, Oxford, UK.
13
Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
14
The State Key Laboratory of Stem cell and Reproductive Biology, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
15
University of Chicago Divinity School, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Erratum in

PMID:
29121021
DOI:
10.1038/nbt.4015
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Nature Publishing Group
Loading ...
Support Center