Researchers are exploring the use of gene-editing technologies to prevent and/or treat genetic conditions in humans. Stakeholder views, including those of patient and family populations, are important in the ongoing bioethical discussion. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with parents of people with trisomy 21 (T21; N = 10), trisomy 18 (T18; N = 8), and trisomy 13 (T13; N = 9)—conditions not previously studied in regard to attitudes toward hypothetical gene editing. While many discussions focus on the morality of gene editing, parents in our study focused on quality of life and concerns about changing their children's identity. All participants prioritized ameliorating life-threatening health issues when those were present; many also emphasized increasing their children's communication and cognitive ability. These results suggest that patient populations with the lived experience of genetic conditions have unique concerns that may differ from broader discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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.
2.
WangH, YangH, ShivalilaCS, et al.One-step generation of mice carrying mutations in multiple genes by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Cell, 2013; 153:910–918. DOI: 10.1016/J.CELL.2013.04.025.
3.
NiuY, ShenB, CuiY, et al.Generation of gene-modified cynomolgus monkey via Cas9/RNA-mediated gene targeting in one-cell embryos. Cell, 2014; 156:836–843. DOI: 10.1016/J.CELL.2014.01.027.
4.
KomorAC, BadranAH, LiuDR. CRISPR-based technologies for the manipulation of eukaryotic genomes. Cell, 2017; 168:20–36. DOI: 10.1016/J.CELL.2016.10.044.
5.
ChoSW, KimS, KimJM, et al.Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol, 2013; 31:230–232. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2507.
Committee on Science, Technology, and Law Policy and Global Affairs. International Summit on Human Gene Editing: A Global Discussion (2015). Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016.
8.
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.
9.
BaltimoreD, BergP, BotchanM, et al.Biotechnology. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 2015; 348:36–38. DOI: 10.1126/science.aab1028.
10.
FriedmannT, JonlinEC, KingNMP, et al.ASGCT and JSGT joint position statement on human genomic editing. Mol Ther, 2015; 23:1282. DOI: 10.1038/mt.2015.118.
AllyseM, BombardY, IsasiR, et al.What do we do now?: Responding to claims of germline gene editing in humans. Genet Med, 2019 Mar 27 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0492-3.
14.
McCaugheyT, SanfilippoPG, GoodenGE, 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.
15.
RigganKA, SharpRR, AllyseM.Where will we draw the line? Public opinions of human gene editing. Qual Health Res, 2019 Jan 1 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1177/1049732319846867.
16.
ArmsbyAJ, BombardY, GarrisonNA, et al.Attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward human gene editing. CRISPR J, 2019; 2:331–339. DOI: 10.1089/crispr.2019.0020.
17.
PersaudA, DesineS, BlizinskyK, et al.A CRISPR focus on attitudes and beliefs toward somatic genome editing from stakeholders within the sickle cell disease community. Genet Med, 2018; 21:1726–1734. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0409-6.
18.
Hoffman-AndrewsL, MazzoniR, PacioneM, et al.Attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions toward gene editing technology. Mol Genet Genom Med, 2019; 7:e00803. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.803.
19.
MichieM, AllyseM. Gene modification therapies: views of parents of people with Down syndrome. Genet Med, 2018; 21:487–492. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0077-6.
20.
RigganKA, NyquistC, MichieM, et al.Evaluating the risks and benefits of genetic and pharmacologic interventions for Down syndrome: views of parents. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil, 2019, in press.
21.
OrmondKE, BombardY, BonhamVL, et al.The clinical application of CRISPR: ethical and social issues. Pers Med, 2019; 16:337–350.
22.
RolandJS, WilliamsJK. Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st- century genetics. Fam Process, 2005; 44:3–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2005.00039.x.
23.
MaiCT, KucikJE, IsenburgJ, et al.Selected birth defects data from population-based birth defects surveillance programs in the United States, 2006 to 2010: featuring trisomy conditions. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol, 2013; 97 :709–725. DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23198.
24.
InglisA, LohnZ, AustinJC, et al.A “cure” for Down syndrome: what do parents want?. Clin Genet, 2014; 86:310–317. DOI: 10.1111/cge.12364.
25.
ChenEA, SchiffmanJF. Attitudes toward genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis among a group of individuals with physical disabilities. J Genetc Counsel, 2000; 9:137–152. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009412025722.
26.
MiddletonA, HewisonJ, MuellerRF. Attitudes of deaf adults toward genetic testing for hereditary deafness. Am J Hum Genet, 1998; 63:1175–1180. DOI: 10.1086/302060.
27.
SkotkoBG, LevineSP, GoldsteinR. Having a son or daughter with Down syndrome: perspectives from mothers and fathers. Am J Med Genet A, 2011; 155A:2335–2347. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34293.
28.
SkotkoBG, LevineSP, GoldsteinR. Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet A, 2011; 155:2360–2369. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.34235.
29.
GuonJ, WilfondBS, FarlowB, et al.Our children are not a diagnosis: the experience of parents who continue their pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 13 or 18. Am J Med Genet A, 2014; 164:308–318. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.36298.
30.
JanvierA, FarlowB, WilfondBS. The experience of families with children with trisomy 13 and 18 in social networks. Am Acad Pediatr, 2012; 130. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-0151.
31.
PattonMQ.Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001.
32.
InglisA, HippmanC, AustinJC. Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: the perspectives of parents of individuals with Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet A, 2012; 158A:743–750. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35238.
33.
JanvierA, FarlowB, BarringtonKJ. Parental hopes, interventions, and survival of neonates with trisomy 13 and trisomy 18. Am Med Genet C Sem Med Genet, 2016; 172:279–287. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31526.
34.
CareyJC.Perspectives on the care and management of infants with trisomy 18 and trisomy 13: striving for balance. Curr Opin Pediatr, 2012; 24:672–678. DOI: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e3283595031.
35.
McGrawMP, PerlmanJM. Attitudes of neonatologists toward delivery room management of confirmed trisomy 18: potential factors influencing a changing dynamic. Pediatrics, 2008; 121:1106–1110. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-1869.
36.
ChapmanRL, PeterecSM, BizzarroMJ, et al.Patient selection for neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: beyond severity of illness. J Perinatol, 2009; 29:606–611. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2009.57.
37.
RichardsCT, CrawleyLM, MagnusD. Use of neurodevelopmental delay in pediatric solid organ transplant listing decisions: inconsistencies in standards across major pediatric transplant centers. Pediatr Transplant, 2009; 13:843–850. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2008.01072.x.
38.
CharDS, Lázaro-MuñozG, BarnesA, et al.Genomic contraindications for heart transplantation. Pediatrics, 2017; 139. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-3471.
39.
BullMJ.Committee on Genetics Health supervision for children with Down syndrome. Pediatrics, 2011; 128:393–406. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-1605.
40.
KaposyC.A disability critique of the new prenatal test for Down syndrome. Kennedy Inst Ethics J, 2013; 23:299–324. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2013.0017.
41.
HolmS.The expressivist objection to prenatal diagnosis: can it be laid to rest?. J Med Ethics, 2008; 34:24–25.
42.
ParensE, AschA. Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev, 2003; 9:40–47. DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.10056.
43.
QuinonesJ, LajkaA.“What kind of society do you want to live in?”: inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing. Available online at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/ (last accessed June7, 2019).
44.
JiangJ, JingY, CostGJ, et al.Translating dosage compensation to trisomy 21. Nature, 2013; 500:296–300.
AzizNM, GuedjF, PenningsJ, et al.Lifespan analysis of brain development, gene expression and behavioral phenotypes in the Ts1Cje, Ts65Dn and Dp(16)1/Yey mouse models of Down syndrome. Dis Model Mech, 2018; 11. DOI: 10.1242/dmm.031013.
47.
GuedjFayçal, DianaW. Bianchi, and Jean-Maurice Delabar. Prenatal treatment of Down syndrome: a reality? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2014; 26:92–103. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000056.
Supplementary Material
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.
