We report findings from two open-framed focus groups eliciting informed public opinion about the rapidly developing technology of human genome editing in the context of the US healthcare system. Results reveal that participants take a dim view of the present healthcare system, articulating extensive concerns about the accessibility and affordability of care. They feel that, unless these problems are resolved, they stand little chance of benefiting from any eventual human genome editing treatments. They prioritize improvement in healthcare access well above human genome editing development, and human genome editing regulation and oversight above human genome editing research. These results reveal substantial divergence between public perspectives and expert discourse on human genome editing. The latter attends primarily to the moral permissibility of technical categories of human genome editing research and how to treat human genome editing within existing regulatory and oversight systems rather than broader political-economic and healthcare access concerns. This divergence illustrates the importance of openly framed public engagement around emerging technologies.
AdashiEYCohenIG (2015) Editing the genome of the human germline: May Cool heads prevail. The American Journal of Bioethics15(12): 40–42.
2.
AdashiEYCohenIG (2017) Ideology v. beneficence. Journal of Law and the Biosciences4(2): 365–370.
3.
BaltimoreDBergPBotchanMCarrollDCharoRAChurchG, et al. (2015) A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science348(6230): 36–38.
4.
BarbenDFisherESelinCGustonDH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In: HackettEJAmsterdamskaOLynchMWajcmanJ (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 979–1000.
5.
BauerABognerA (2020) Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 492–507.
6.
BellamyRChilversJVaughanNE (2016) Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisals of geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science25(3): 269–286.
7.
BlendonRJGorskiMTBensonJM (2016) The public and the gene-editing revolution. The New England Journal of Medicine374(15): 1406–1411. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1602010.
8.
BovenkerkB (2015) Scientific responsibility: Should analysis start with the scientists?The American Journal of Bioethics15(12): 66–68.
9.
BozemanBSarewitzD (2011) Public value mapping and science policy innovation. Minerva49: 1–23.
GaskellGBardIAllansdottirAda CunhaRVEduardPHampelJ, et al. (2017) Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nature Biotechnology35(11): 1021–1023. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3958.
19.
German Ethics Council (2019) Intervening in the Human Germline: Opinion-Executive Summary & Recommendations (trans. A Sharpe). Berlin: German Ethics Council.
20.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
21.
GreelyHT (2019) CRISPR’d babies: Human germline genome editing in the ‘He Jiankui affair’. Journal of Law and the Biosciences6(1): 111–183.
22.
GustonDH (2014) Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science44(2): 218–242.
23.
GustonDH (2018) . . .Damned if you don’t. Journal of Responsible Innovation5(3): 347–352.
24.
HarawayD (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies14(3): 575–599.
25.
HardingS (1992) Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity’?The Centennial Review36(3): 437–470.
26.
Harvard School of Public Health & STAT (2016) The Public and Genetic Editing, Testing, and Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
27.
HilgartnerS (2015) Capturing the imaginary: Vanguards, visions, and the synthetic biology revolution. In: HilgartnerSMillerCHagendijkR (eds) Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 33–55.
28.
HodsonR (2018) The future of medicine. Nature555: S1.
29.
HowlettM (2021) Looking at the ‘field’ through a zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research22(3): 387–402.
30.
HurlbutJB (2015) Limits of responsibility: Genome editing, Asilomar, and the politics of deliberation. Hastings Center Report45(5): 11–14.
31.
HurlbutJB (2019) Human genome editing: Ask whether, not how. Nature565: 135.
32.
IrwinAJensenTEJonesKE (2013) The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science43(1): 118–135.
33.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
JasanoffS (2018) Can Science Make Sense of Life?Cambridge: Polity Press.
35.
JasanoffSHurlbutJBSahaK (2019) Democratic governance of human germline genome editing. The CRISPR Journal2(5): 266–271.
36.
KaplanLRFarooqueMSarewitzDTomblinD (2021) Designing participatory technology assessments: A reflexive method for advancing the public role in science policy decision-making. Technological Forecasting and Social Change171: e120974.
37.
LanderESBaylisFZhangFCharpentierEBergPBourgainC, et al. (2019) Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature567: 165–168.
38.
LanphierEUrnovFHaeckerSESmolenskiJ (2015) Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature519(7544): 410–411.
39.
LiuJScheufeleDA (2016) A revisionist perspective on framing effects. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.48.
40.
LobeBMorganDHoffmanK (2020) Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods19: 160940692093787.
41.
McCaugheyTSanfilippoPGGoodenGECBuddenDMFanLFenwickE, et al. (2016) A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell18(5): 569–572.
42.
MacnaghtenP (2017) Focus groups as anticipatory technology: A contribution from Science and Technology Studies towards socially resilient governance. In: BarbourRSMorganDL (eds) A New Era in Focus Group Research. London: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 343–363.
43.
MarresN (2012) Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
MarresN (2015) Why map issues? On controversy analysis as a digital method. Science, Technology, & Human Values40(5): 655–686.
45.
MontoliuLMerchantJHirschFAbecassisMJouannetPBaertschiB, et al. (2018) ARRIGE arrives: Toward the responsible use of genome editing. The CRISPR Journal1(2): 128–129.
46.
MorrisonMde SailleS (2019) CRISPR in context: Towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing. Palgrave Communications5: 110.
47.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
48.
National Academy of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society (2020) Heritable Human Genome Editing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
49.
NelsonJPSelinCLScottCT (2021) Toward anticipatory governance of human genome editing: A critical review of scholarly governance discourse. Journal of Responsible Innovation8(3): 382–420.
50.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2016) Genome Editing: An Ethical Review. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
51.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
52.
NyeDE (2003) America as Second Creation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
OudshoornNPinchT (2008) User-technology relationships: Some recent developments. In: HackettEJAmsterdamskaOLynchMWajcmanJ (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 541–565.
QuachKBarlevyDFarooqueMLambertLManleyHMyszkaJ, et al. (2022) Framing Our Biological Futures: Preliminary Results from Human Gene Editing Public Forums. Washington, DC: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.
58.
RibeiroBBengtssonLBenneworthPBührerSCastro-MartínezEHansenM, et al. (2018) Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation5(3): 316–331.
59.
RoseKMKorzekwaKBrossardDScheufeleDAHeislerL (2017) Engaging the public at a science festival: Findings from a panel on human gene editing. Science Communication39(2): 250–277. DOI: 10.1177/1075547017697981.
SahaKHurlbutJBJasanoffSAhmedAAppiahABartholetE, et al. (2018) Building capacity for a global genome editing observatory: Institutional design. Trends in Biotechnology36(8): 741–743.
62.
ScheufeleDKrauseNMFreilingIBrossardD (2021) What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(22): 1–8.
63.
ScheufeleDAXenosMAHowellELRoseKMBrossardDHardyBW (2017) U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science357(6351): 553–554. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3708.
64.
StapletonPYabarAT (2022) Playing God? Media coverage of CRISPR in the United States. Public Understanding of Science32(4): 504–521.
65.
StilgoeJOwenRMacnaghtenP (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy42(9): 1568–1580.
66.
StirlingA (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values33(2): 262–294.
67.
StraussACorbinJM (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68.
ToyamaK (2015) Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
69.
van MilAHopkinsHKinsellaS (2017) Potential Uses for Genetic Technologies: Dialogue and Engagement Research Conducted on Behalf of the Royal Society. London: Hopkins Van Mil.
70.
VinckD (ed.) (2003) Everyday Engineering: An Ethnography of Design and Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
71.
WatanabeDSaitoYTsudaMOhsawaR (2020) Increased awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-editing technology: The impact of the Chinese twin babies. PLoS ONE15(9): e0238128.
72.
WeisbergSMBadgioDChatterjeeA (2017) A CRISPR new world: Attitudes in the public toward innovations in human genetic modification. Frontiers in Public Health5(117). DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00117.
WolpePRRommelfangerKS, Drafting and Reviewing Delegates of the BEINGS Working Groups (2017) Ethical principles for the use of human cellular biotechnologies. Nature Biotechnology35(11): 1050–1058.
75.
World Health Organization (2021) World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing (Human Genome Editing Recommendations). Geneva: World Health Organization.
76.
YoungIM (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
