Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The application of gene editing technologies to prevent or mitigate genetic disease in humans is considered one of its most promising applications. However, as the technology advances, it is imperative to understand the views of the broader public on how it should be used. We conducted focus groups to understand public views on the ethical permissibility and governance of gene editing technologies in humans. A total of 50 urban and semirural residents in the upper Midwest took part in six focus groups. Participants expressed multiple concerns about nonmedical uses of gene editing and its potential for unknown harms to human health, and were divided as to whether the individual patient or “medical experts” should be charged with overseeing the scope of its application. As potential stakeholders, the perspectives from the general public are critical to assess as genome editing technologies advance toward the clinic.

Keywords

ethics moral perspectives genetics health qualitative research North America

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baltimore

Berg

Botchan

Carroll

Charo

R. A.

Church

. . . Yamamoto

K. R.

(2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348, 36–38. doi:10.1126/science.aab1028

Begley

(2018, November). Amid uproar, Chinese scientist defends creating gene-edited babies. STAT News. Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/28/chinese-scientist-defends-creating-gene-edited-babies/

Belluck

(2017, August). Gene editing for “designer babies?” Highly unlikely, scientists say. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/science/gene-editing-embryos-designer-babies.html

Bergman

Eli

Osowski

C. P.

Lövestam

Nowicka

(2019). Public expressions of trust and distrust in governmental dietary advice in Sweden. Qualitative Health Research, 29, 1161–1173. doi:10.1177/1049732318825153

Brokowski

(2018). Do CRISPR germline ethics statements cut it. The CRISPR Journal, 1, 115–125. Retrieved from https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/crispr.2017.0024

Callaway

(2016). Gene-editing research in human embryos gains momentum. Nature, 532, 289–290. doi:10.1038/532289a

Center for Genetics and Society. (2018). Civil society statement to the organizers of the “second international summit on human genome editing.” Retrieved from https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/internal-content/civil-society-statement-organizers-second-international-summit-human-genome

Charlesworth

C. T.

Deshpande

P. S.

Dever

D. P.

Dejene

Gomez-Ospina

Mantri

. . . Porteus

M. H.

(2018). Identification of pre-existing adaptive immunity to Cas9 proteins in humans. BioRxiv. Retrieved from https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/01/05/243345.full.pdf

Charo

R. A.

(2016). On the road (to a cure?)—Stem-cell tourism and lessons for gene editing. The New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 901–903. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1600891

10.

Cwik

(2017). Designing ethical trials of germline gene editing. The New England Journal of Medicine, 377, 1911–1913. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1711000

11.

Dai

W.-J.

Zhu

L.-Y.

Yan

Z.-Y.

Wang

Q.-L.

X.-J.

(2016). CRISPR-Cas9 for in vivo gene therapy: Promise and hurdles. Molecular Therapy—Nucleic Acids, 5, e349. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2162253117300586

12.

de Wert

Pennings

Clarke

Eichenlaub-Ritter

van El

C. G.

Forzano

. . . Cornel

M. C

. (2018). Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE. European Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 445–449. doi:10.1038/s41431-017-0076-0

13.

Donovan

(1995). The process of analysis during a grounded theory study of men during their partners’ pregnancies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 708–715. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7797707

14.

Dunbar

C. E.

High

K. A.

Joung

J. K.

Kohn

D. B.

Ozawa

Sadelain

(2018). Gene therapy comes of age. Science, 359, eaan4672. doi:10.1126/science.aan4672

15.

Fogarty

N. M. E.

McCarthy

Snijders

K. E.

Powell

B. E.

Kubikova

Blakeley

. . . Niakan

K. K.

(2017). Genome editing reveals a role for OCT4 in human embryogenesis. Nature, 550, 67–73. doi:10.1038/nature24033

16.

Fournier

Poulain

J.-P.

(2018). Eating according to one’s genes? Exploring the French public’s understanding of and reactions to personalized nutrition. Qualitative Health Research, 28, 2195–2207. doi:10.1177/1049732318793417

17.

Friedmann

Jonlin

E. C.

King

N. M. P.

Torbett

B. E.

Wivel

N. A.

Kaneda

Sadelain

(2015). ASGCT and JSGT joint position statement on human genomic editing. Molecular Therapy, 23(8), 1282. doi:10.1038/mt.2015.118

18.

Gallup. (2017, December). 2017 Honesty/ethics in professions. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx

19.

Haapaniemi

Botla

Persson

Schmierer

Taipale

(2018). CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing induces a p53-mediated DNA damage response. Nature Medicine, 24, 927–930. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0049-z

20.

Hasson

Darnovsky

(2018, November). Gene-edited babies: No one has the moral warrant to go it alone. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/27/gene-edited-babies-no-one-has-moral-warrant-go-it-alone

21.

Hough

S. H.

Ajetunmobi

(2017). The future of CRISPR applications in the lab, the clinic and society. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1016, 157–178. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63904-8_9

22.

Ihry

R. J.

Worringer

K. A.

Salick

M. R.

Frias

Theriault

. . . Kaykas

(2018). p53 inhibits CRISPR-Cas9 engineering in human pluripotent stem cells. Nature Medicine, 24, 939–946. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0050-6

23.

Iredale

Dolan

McDonald

Kirk

(2003). Public attitudes to human gene therapy: A pilot study in Wales. Community Genetics, 6, 139–146. doi:10.1159/000078161

24.

Ishii

(2015). Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 21, 473–481. doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.006

25.

Ishii

(2017). The ethics of creating genetically modified children using genome editing. Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity, 24, 418–423. doi:10.1097/MED.0000000000000369

26.

Jasanoff

Hurlbut

J. B.

Saha

(2015). CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology, 32, 25–32. Retrieved from http://www.ask-force.org/web/Genomics/Jasanoff-CRISPR-Democracy-Gene-Editing-2015.pdf

27.

Kang

Huang

Chen

Gao

. . . Fan

(2016). Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 33, 581–588. doi:10.1007/s10815-016-0710-8

28.

Knapton

(2018, April). Humans to be genetically-modified in Europe for the first time this year using gene-splicing therapy. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/04/15/europe-see-first-genetically-engineered-patients-using-gene/

29.

Lander

E. S.

(2015). Brave new genome. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 5–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1506446

30.

Lanphier

Urnov

Haecker

S. E.

Werner

Smolenski

(2015). Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature, 519, 410–411. doi:10.1038/519410a

31.

Liang

Zhang

Ding

Huang

Zhang

. . . Huang

(2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell, 6, 363–372. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5

32.

Lipschultz

Spalding

(2018, May). Gene-therapy company Crispr drops as FDA puts trial on hold. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-30/gene-therapy-company-crispr-drops-after-fda-puts-hold-on-trial

33.

Marti-Gutierrez

Park

S. W.

Lee

Suzuki

. . . Mitalipov

(2017). Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature, 548, 413–419. doi:10.1038/nature23305

34.

Marchione

(2018, November). Chinese researcher claims first gene-edited babies. AP. Retrieved from https://www.apnews.com/4997bb7aa36c45449b488e19ac83e86d

35.

McCarthy

(2015). Scientists call for moratorium on clinical use of human germline editing. British Medical Journal, 351, Article h6603. doi:10.1136/bmj.h6603

36.

McCaughey

Sanfilippo

P. G.

Gooden

G. E.

Budden

D. M.

Fan

Fenwick

. . . Hewitt

A. W.

(2016). A global social media survey of attitudes to human genome editing. Cell Stem Cell, 18, 569–572. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2016.04.011

37.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Human genome editing: Science, ethics, and governance. The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Human-Genome-Editing-Science-Governance/dp/0309452880

38.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2016). Genome editing: An ethical review. Retrieved from http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genome-editing/ethical-review-published-september-2016

39.

Ormond

K. E.

Mortlock

D. P.

Scholes

D. T.

Bombard

Brody

L. C.

Faucett

W. A.

. . . Young

C. E.

(2017). Human germline genome editing. American Journal of Human Genetics, 101, 167–176. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012

40.

Pew Research Center. (2016a). The politics of climate. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/10/PS_2016.10.04_Politics-of-Climate_FINAL.pdf

41.

Pew Research Center. (2016b). U.S. public wary of biomedical technologies to “enhance” human abilities. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/PS_2016.07.26_Human-Enhancement-Survey_FINAL.pdf

42.

Pew Research Center. (2018). Public views of gene editing for babies depend on how it would be used. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/07/26/public-views-of-gene-editing-for-babies-depend-on-how-it-would-be-used/

43.

Rana

Marcus

A. D.

Fan

(2018, January). China, unhampered by rules, races ahead in gene-editing trials. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-unhampered-by-rules-races-ahead-in-gene-editing-trials-1516562360

44.

Regalado

(2018a, November). CRISPR inventor Feng Zhang calls for moratorium on gene-edited babies. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612465/crispr-inventor-feng-zhang-calls-for-moratorium-on-baby-making/

45.

Regalado

(2018b, November). Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612458/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/

46.

Savulescu

(2001). Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15, 413–426. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12058767

47.

Scharf

Dzeng

(2017, March). “I’m willing to try anything”: Compassionate use access to experimental drugs and the misguided mission of right-to-try laws. Retrieved from https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170327.059378/full/

48.

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

Howell

E. L.

Rose

K. M.

Brossard

Hardy

B. W.

(2017). U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science, 357, 553–554. doi:10.1126/science.aan3708

49.

Stanford

S. M.

Bottini

(2014). PTPN22: The archetypal non-HLA autoimmunity gene. Nature Reviews Rheumatology, 10, 602–611. doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2014.109

50.

STAT & Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2016). The public and genetic editing, testing, and therapy. Boston: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

51.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.

52.

Tang

Zeng

Gong

Peng

Zhang

. . . Liu

(2017). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human zygotes using Cas9 protein. Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 292, 525–533. doi:10.1007/s00438-017-1299-z

53.

Tyner

S. D.

Venkatachalam

Choi

Jones

Ghebranious

Igelmann

. . . Donehower

L. A.

(2002). p53 mutant mice that display early ageing-associated phenotypes. Nature, 415, 45–53. doi:10.1038/415045a

54.

Wagner

D. L.

Amani

Wendering

D. J.

Reinke

Volk

H.-D.

Schmueck-Henneresse

(2018). High prevalence of S. pyogenes Cas9-specific T cell sensitization within the adult human population—A balanced effector/regulatory T cell response. BioRxiv. Retrieved from https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/04/04/295139.full.pdf

55.

Walker

M. J.

Rogers

W. A.

Entwistle

(2014). Ethical justifications for access to unapproved medical interventions: An argument for (limited) patient obligations. The American Journal of Bioethics, 14(11), 3–15. doi:10.1080/15265161.2014.957416

56.

Weintraub

(2018, November). Scientist who edited babies’ genomes faces widespread criticism. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-who-edited-babies-genomes-faces-widespread-criticism/

57.

Wellcome Trust. (2005). What do people think about gene therapy? Retrieved from https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtx026421_0.pdf

58.

Yong

(2015, December). What can you actually do with your fancy gene-editing technology? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/what-can-you-actually-do-with-your-fancy-gene-editing-technology/418377/

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.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB

Where Will We Draw the Line? Public Opinions of Human Gene Editing

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material