↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Gain-of-function experiments: time for a real debate

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Microbiology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
108 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Gain-of-function experiments: time for a real debate
Published in
Nature Reviews Microbiology, December 2014
DOI 10.1038/nrmicro3405
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Paul Duprex, Ron A. M. Fouchier, Michael J. Imperiale, Marc Lipsitch, David A. Relman

Abstract

According to the WHO, dual use research of concern (DURC) is "life sciences research that is intended for benefit, but which might easily be misapplied to do harm". Recent studies, particularly those on influenza viruses, have led to renewed attention on DURC, as there is an ongoing debate over whether the benefits of gain-of-function (GOF) experiments that result in an increase in the transmission and/or pathogenicity of potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are outweighed by concerns over biosecurity and biosafety. In this Viewpoint article, proponents and opponents of GOF experiments discuss the benefits and risks associated with these studies, as well as the implications of the current debate for the scientific community and the general public, and suggest how the current discussion should move forward.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 108 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 5%
Belgium 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
France 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 74 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 27%
Student > Bachelor 17 20%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Master 12 14%
Other 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 7 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 119. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2020.
All research outputs
#158,760
of 15,148,377 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Microbiology
#56
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,066
of 303,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Microbiology
#2
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,148,377 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.