Article | Published:

Attitudes of clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors to genome editing and its clinical applications: A nation-wide questionnaire survey in Japan


Genome editing of the human embryo using CRISPR/Cas9 has the potential to prevent hereditary diseases from being transmitted to the next generation. However, attitudes to this technology have not been examined sufficiently among the genetic professionals who will use it in the near future. We conducted a questionnaire survey of Japanese clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors. Differences were observed between them in their recognition of this technology and impressions on its difficulty and cost. Both groups worried about misuse of it, with insufficient information and rules. As key elements for such rules, they considered ethics, safety, and purpose. Most disapproved of modifying physical traits as an enhancement, though they hoped for the treatment of severe diseases. At current clinical sites, they tended to adopt a prudent attitude by mentioning only the possibility of genome editing in the future. Academic policies and legislation are required, especially for application in human embryos, through a consensus of professionals and general citizens. Furthermore, professionals should maintain awareness of new developments and regularly reexamine attitudes for the ongoing development of more suitable rules, education systems, and clinical protocols. As preparation for changes, opportunities to address ethical issues and initiate discussions are also required.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Ethics declarations

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Anderson WF. Human gene therapy. Science. 1992;256:808–13.

  2. 2.

    Barton NW, Brady RO, Dambrosia JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Doppelt SH, Hill SC, et al. Replacement Therapy for Inherited Enzyme Deficiency — Macrophage-Targeted Glucocerebrosidase for Gaucher’s Disease. New Engl J Med. 1991;324:1464–70.

  3. 3.

    Gene Therapy Clinical Trials Worldwide. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  4. 4.

    Seoane-Vazquez E, Shukla V, Rodriguez-Monguio R. Innovation and competition in advanced therapy medicinal products. EMBO Mol Med. 2019;11:e9992.

  5. 5.

    Grupp SA, Laetsch TW, Buechner J, Bittencourt H, Maude SL, Verneris MR, et al. Analysis of a global registration trial of the efficacy and safety of ctl019 in pediatric and young adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Blood. 2016;128:221.

  6. 6.

    Suda H, Murakami A, Kaga T, Tomioka H, Morishita R. Beperminogene perplasmid for the treatment of critical limb ischemia. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2014;12:1145–56.

  7. 7.

    Kang E, Wu J, Gutierrez NM, Koski A, Tippner-Hedges R, Agaronyan K, et al. Mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes carrying pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations. Nature. 2016;540:270–5.

  8. 8.

    Baylis F. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:531–4.

  9. 9.

    Zhang J, Liu H, Luo S, Chavez-Badiola A, Liu Z, Yang M, et al. First live birth using human oocytes reconstituted by spindle nuclear transfer for mitochondrial DNA mutation causing Leigh syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:e375–6.

  10. 10.

    Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E. A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science. 2012;337:816–21.

  11. 11.

    Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell. 2015;6:363–72.

  12. 12.

    Japan Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, Japan Society of Human Genetics, Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Japan Society for Reproductive Medicine. Recommendation on human genome editing. 2016. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  13. 13.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, National Academy of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical, and Ethical Considerations. Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2017.

  14. 14.

    Brokowski C. Do CRISPR germline ethics statements cut it? CRISPR J. 2018;1:115–25.

  15. 15.

    Science Council of Japan. Genome editing technology in medical sciences and clinical applications in Japan. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  16. 16.

    Ishii T. Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21:473–81.

  17. 17.

    McCaughey T, Sanfilippo PG, Gooden GEC, Budden DM, Fan L, Fenwick E, et al. A Global Social Media Survey of Attitudes to Human Genome Editing. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18:569–72.

  18. 18.

    Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Howell EL, Rose KM, Brossard D, Hardy BW. U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science. 2017;357:553–4.

  19. 19.

    Gaskell G, Bard I, Allansdottir A, da Cunha RV, Eduard P, Hampel J, et al. Public views on gene editing and its uses. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:1021–3.

  20. 20.

    Whitman D. U.S. Public opinion and interest on human enhancements technology. AARP Res. 2018.

  21. 21.

    Wang J-H, Wang R, Lee JH, Iao TWU, Hu X, Wang Y-M, et al. Public attitudes toward gene therapy in China. Mol Ther - Methods Clin Dev. 2017;6:40–42.

  22. 22.

    Uchiyama M, Nagai A, Muto K. Survey on the perception of germline genome editing among the general public in Japan. J Hum Genet. 2018;63:745.

  23. 23.

    Musunuru Kiran, Lagor William R, Miano Joseph M. What do we really think about human germline genome editing, and what does it mean for medicine? Circ: Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10:e001910.

  24. 24.

    Science Council of Japan. Recommendation genome editing technology in medical sciences and clinical appliacations in Japan. September 27, 2017. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  25. 25.

    Funk C, Kennedy B, Sciupac E. U.S. public wary about use of biomedical technology for human enhancement. 2016. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  26. 26.

    Engard NC LimeSurvey Public Services Q. 2009.

  27. 27.

    Cochran WG. Some methods for strengthening the common χ2 Tests. Biometrics. 1954;10:417–51.

  28. 28.

    Cyranoski D. CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time. Nat News. 2016;539:479.

  29. 29.

    Reardon S. First CRISPR clinical trial gets green light from US panel. Nat News.

  30. 30.

    Kosicki M, Tomberg K, Bradley A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36:765.

  31. 31.

    Funk C, Hefferon M. Public views of gene editing for babies depend on how it would be used. 2018. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  32. 32.

    Cyranoski D. Japan set to allow gene editing in human embryos. Nature. 2018.

  33. 33.

    Cyranoski D, Ledford H. Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. Nature. 2018. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  34. 34.

    ASHG Reaffirms 2017. Position statement on germline genome editing report from china, if confirmed, would be at odds with field consensus that germline editing is not ready for human use. 2018. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

  35. 35.

    Japan Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, Japan Society of Human Genetics, Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Japan Society for Reproductive Medicine. Statement of four related academic societies on clinical application of human embryo genome editing. 2018. Accessed 05 Jan 2019.

Download references


We would like to thank all of those who have assisted in the questionnaire survey and have received the guidance and support of clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors. In addition, the authors wish to acknowledge Dr. Kazuya Setoh, Center for Genomic Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan, for help in the statistical analysis of this study.

Author information

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Correspondence to Takahiro Yamada.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Table 1 and 2

Supplementary Figure 1 and 2

Supplementary Figure 3 and 4

Supplementary Figure 5 and 6

Supplementary Figure 7 and 8

Supplementary Figure 9 and 10

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4