Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionised genome engineering and has the potential to radically change our approach to genetic disease. However, the potential for genetic modification of embryos has raised significant and complex ethical and social concerns. The scientific community have called for ongoing stakeholder consultation about Germline Gene Editing (GGE), in particular lay publics, to help guide policy, education, research and regulatory priorities. In response, we conducted a survey to gauge public support for GGE and describe the demographic, experiential and contextual factors that influence individual attitudes. Respondent support was measured across nine hypothetical medical and enhancement GGE applications. We received responses from 1537 participants across 67 countries. Respondents were generally supportive of GGE, particularly for medical applications. While the most opposition observed was among religious respondents, those with work experience in genetics or genomics also reported greater resistance to GGE. Personal or family-related experience with genetics or genomics, identifying as female and tertiary education were also associated with less support for GGE. Further research needs to explore a diverse range of community and group attitudes towards GGE; the reasons underlying demographic and experiential differences; and to determine where the public and genetics professionals draw the line on ethical implementation respectively.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gaj T, Gersbach CA, Barbas CF. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31:397–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004.
Doudna JA, Charpentier E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. 2014;346:1258096-3–7.
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.
Kang X, He W, Huang Y, Yu Q, Chen Y, Gao X. et al. Erratum to: Introducing precise genetic modifications into human 3PN embryos by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(5):518–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0710-8. J Assist Reprod Genet [Internet]. 2017;34:963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0710-8.
Ma H, Marti-Gutierrez N, Park S-W, Wu J, Lee Y, Suzuki K, et al. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature. 2017. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28783728.
Daley GQ, Lovell-Badge R, Steffann J. After the storm—a responsible path for genome editing. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:897–9.
Cyranoski D, Ledford H. International outcry over genome edited baby claim. Nature. 2018;563:607–8. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07545-0.
Baltimore D, Baylis F, Berg P, Daley GQ, Doudna JA, Lander ES, et al. On human gene editing: international summit statement by the organizing committee. Issues Sci Technol. 2016;32:55–6. http://www.jstor.org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/stable/24727061.
Cyranoski D. Russian biologist plans more CRISPR-edited babies. Nature. 2019;570:145–6.
Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE, Werner M, Smolenski J. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature. 2015;519:410–1.
Ormond KE, Mortlock DP, Scholes DT, Bombard Y, Brody LC, Faucett WA, et al. Human germline genome editing. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;101:167–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012.
Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G, et al. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science. 2015;348:36–8.
Committee International Bioethics (UNESCO). Concept note on updating the IBC’s reflection on the human genome and human rights. UNESCO. 2015;2014. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233258E.pdf.
Lander ES, Baylis F, Zhang F, Charpentier E, Berg P, Bourgain C, et al. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature. 2019;567:165–8.
Savulescu J, Pugh J, Douglas T, Gyngell C. The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein Cell. 2015;6:476–9.
Gyngell C. Gene editing and the health of future generations. J R Soc Med. 2017;110:276–9.
Committee on Human Gene Editing U. Human Genome Editing. 2017. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24623.
Weisberg SM, Badgio D, Chatterjee A. A CRISPR new world: attitudes in the public toward innovations in human genetic modification. Front Public Heal. 2017;5:1–9. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00117/full
Uchiyama M, Nagai A, Muto K. Survey on the perception of germline genome editing among the general public in Japan. J Hum Genet. 2018;63:745–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-018-0430-2.
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;35:1022–3.
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.
Critchley C, Nicol D, Bruce G, Walshe J, Treleaven T, Tuch B. Predicting public attitudes toward gene editing of germlines: the impact of moral and hereditary concern in human and animal applications. Front Genet. 2019;10:1–14.
Riggan KA, Sharp RR, Allyse M. Where will we draw the line? Public opinions of human gene editing. Qual Health Res. 2019;29:1823–35.
Rosemann A, Balen A, Nerlich B, Hauskeller C, Sleeboom-Faulkner M, Hartley S, et al. Heritable genome editing in a global context: national and international policy challenges. Hastings Cent Rep. 2019;49:30–42.
McCaughey T, Budden DM, Sanfilippo PG, Gooden GEC, Fan L, Fenwick E, 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.
Harvard, STAT. The public and genetic editing, testing, and therapy. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health STAT. 2016(January):1–15. papers3://publication/uuid/6C0A4170-501B-4031-8525-3B51CF16131B.
Armsby AJ, Bombard Y, Garrison NA, Halpern-Felsher BL, Ormond KE. Attitudes of members of genetics professional societies toward human gene editing. CRISPR J. 2019;2:331–9.
Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Wright CF, et al. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:21–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.58.
Taguchi I, Yamada T, Akaishi R, Imoto I, Kurosawa K, Nakatani K, et al. Attitudes of clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors to genome editing and its clinical applications: a nation-wide questionnaire survey in Japan. J Hum Genet. 2019;945–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-019-0635-z.
Hoffman-Andrews L, Mazzoni R, Pacione M, Garland-Thomson R, Ormond KE. Attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions toward gene editing technology. Mol Genet Genom Med. 2019;7:1–14.
Funk C, Kennedy B, Sciupac EUS. Public opinion on the future use of gene editing. Pew Res Cent. 2016;26:33–52.
Allum N, Sturgis P. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci. 2004;13:55–74.
Condit CM. Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet. 2010;11:339–59.
De Witt A, Osseweijer P, Pierce R. Understanding public perceptions of biotechnology through the “Integrative Worldview Framework”. Public Underst Sci. 2017;26:70–88.
Reed K. Gender and genetics: sociology of the prenatal (Genetics and Society). Taylor & Francis; 2012. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=zjsZBs6mPaAC.
Thompson C. CRISPR: move beyond differences. Nature. 2015;522:415.
Guertin L, Mcguire R, Torres A. Public perception of human applications of CRISPR gene editing. 2018.
Sparrow R. Yesterday’s child: how gene editing for enhancement will produce obsolescence—and why it matters. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19:6–15.
Kalfoglou AL. Reprogenetics. In: Chadwick R, ten Have H, Meslin EM editors. SAGE handbook of health care ethics core and emerging issues. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2011. p. 179–93.
Sahakian B, Morein S. Poll results: look who’s doping. Nature. 2008;452:674–5.
Acknowledgements
Danya Vears and Christopher Gyngell acknowledge the infrastructure funding received from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Programme, via the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. Abbie Jedwab wishes to extend special thanks to Rayne Constantine for her assistance with online recruitment and Dr Sharon Lewis for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jedwab, A., Vears, D.F., Tse, C. et al. Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public. J Hum Genet 65, 1055–1065 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-020-0810-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-020-0810-2