Gene-editing technologies have improved in ease, efficiency, and precision. Although discussions are occurring around acceptable uses of human gene editing, limited data exist on the views of genetics-trained individuals. In 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to assess the attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward gene editing (N = 500). Virtually all respondents were supportive of somatic editing in basic-science (99.2%) and clinical (87.4%) research on nonreproductive human cells. Only 57.2% were supportive of germline-editing basic-science research; 31.9% supported the transfer of viable embryos to humans for clinical research. While most favored future therapeutic uses of somatic (96.6%) and germline (77.8%) editing, there was little support for enhancement in somatic (13.0%) or germline (8.6%) cells. This study describes attitudes toward gene editing from genetics professionals worldwide and contributes to ongoing discourse and policy guidance in this domain.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DoudnaJA, CharpentierE. Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 2014; 346:1258096. DOI: 10.1126/science.1258096.
2.
HsuPD, LanderES, ZhangF. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell, 2014; 157:1262–1278. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.010.
3.
BaltimoreD, BergP, BotchanM, et al.A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 2015; 348:36–38. DOI: 10.1126/science.aab1028.
4.
ZhangF, WenY, GuoX. CRISPR/Cas9 for genome editing: progress, implications and challenges. Hum Mol Genet, 2014; 23:40–46. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddu125.
5.
OrmondKE, MortlockDP, ScholesDT, et al.Human germline genome editing. Am J Hum Genet, 2017; 101:167–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012.
6.
de WertG, PenningsG, ClarkeA, et al.Human germline gene editing: recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. Eur J Hum Genet, 2018; 26:445–449. DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0076-0.
7.
IshiiT.Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications. Trends Mol Med, 2015; 21:473–481. DOI: 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.006.
8.
LanphierE, UrnovFD, HaeckerSE, et al.Don't edit the human germ line. Nature, 2015; 519:410–411. DOI: 10.1038/519410a.
9.
WirthT, ParkerN, Ylä-HerttualaS. History of gene therapy. Gene, 2013; 525:162–169. DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2013.03.137.
10.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. International Summit on Human Gene Editing: A Global Discussion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016.
11.
CyranoskiD.CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time. Nature, 2016; 539:479. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2016.20988.
12.
ReardonS.First CRISPR clinical trial gets green light from US panel. Nat News, June22, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2016.20137.
SavulescuJ, PughJ, DouglasT, et al.The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein Cell, 2015; 6:476–479. DOI: 10.1007/s13238-015-0184-y.
16.
BosleyKS, BotchanM, BredenoordAL, et al.CRISPR germline engineering—the community speaks. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33:478–486. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3227.
17.
LanderES, BaylisF, ZhangF, et al.Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature, 2019; 567:165–168. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00726-5.
18.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017.
19.
FriedmannT, JonlinEC, KingNM. ASGCT and JSGT joint position statement on human genomic editing. Mol Ther, 2015; 23:1282. DOI: 10.1038/mt.2015.118.
20.
ChanS, DonovanPJ, DouglasT, et al.Genome editing technologies and human germline genetic modification: The Hinxton Group Consensus Statement. Am J Bioeth, 2015; 15:42–47. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1103814.
ArakiM, IshiiT. International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2014; 12:108. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-108.
27.
IsasiRM, KnoppersBM. Mind the gap: policy approaches to embryonic stem cell and cloning research in 50 countries. Eur J Health Law, 2006; 13:9–26.
28.
IsasiR, KnoppersBM. Oversight of human inheritable genome modification. Nat Biotechnol, 2015; 33:454–455. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3231.
29.
MacerDR, AkiyamaS, AloraAT, et al.International perceptions and approval of gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther, 1995; 6:791–803. DOI: 10.1089/hum.1995.6.6-791.
30.
BlendonRJ, GorskiMT, BensonJM. The public and the gene-editing revolution. N Engl J Med, 2016; 374:1406–1411. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1602010.
31.
ConditCM.Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 2010; 11:339–359. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141740.
RigganKA, SharpRR, AllyseM.Where will we draw the line? Public opinions of human gene editing. Qual Health Res, 2019May5 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1177/1049732319846867.
35.
RobillardJM, Roskams-EdrisD, KuzeljevicB, et al.Prevailing public perceptions of the ethics of gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther, 2014; 25:740–746. DOI: 10.1089/hum.2014.030.
36.
ScheufeleDA, XenosMA, HowellEL, et al. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science, 2017; 357:553–554. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3708.
UchiyamaM, NagaiA, MutoK. Survey on the perception of germline genome editing among the general public in Japan. J Hum Genet, 2018; 63:745–748. DOI: 10.1038/s10038-018-0430-2.
39.
WangJH, WangR, LeeJH, et al.Public attitudes toward gene therapy in China. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev, 2017; 6:40–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.omtm.2017.05.008.
40.
McCaugheyT, BuddenDM, SanfilippoPG, et al.A need for better understanding is the major determinant for public perceptions of human gene editing. Hum Gene Ther, 2019; 30:36–43. DOI: 10.1089/hum.2018.033.
41.
McCaugheyT, SanfilippoPG, GoodenGEC, et al.A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell, 2016; 18:569–572. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.04.011.
42.
Qualtrics Survey Software. Available online at https://www.qualtrics.com/ (last accessed September11, 2016).
ChoYI, JohnsonTP, VanGeestJB. Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof, 2013; 36:382–407. DOI: 10.1177/0163278713496425.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
