Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Public attitudes in the clinical application of genome editing on human embryos in Japan: a cross-sectional survey across multiple stakeholders


Recent advances in genome editing technology are accompanied by increasing public expectations on its potential clinical application, but there are still scientific, ethical, and social considerations that require resolution. In Japan, discussions pertaining to the clinical use of genome editing in human embryos are underway. However, understanding of the public’s sentiment and attitude towards this technology is limited which is important to help guide the debate for prioritizing policies and regulatory necessities. Thus, we conducted a cross-sectional study and administered an online questionnaire across three stakeholder groups: the general public, patients and their families, and health care providers. We received responses from a total of 3,511 individuals, and the attitudes were summarized and compared among the stakeholders. Based on the distribution of responses, health care providers tended to be cautious and reluctant about the clinical use of genome editing, while patients and families appeared supportive and positive. The majority of the participants were against the use of genome editing for enhancement purposes. Participants expressed the view that clinical use may be acceptable when genome editing is the fundamental treatment, the risks are negligible, and the safety of the technology is demonstrated in human embryos. Our findings suggest differences in attitudes toward the clinical use of genome editing across stakeholder groups. Taking into account the diversity of the public’s awareness and incorporating the opinion of the population is important. Further information dissemination and educational efforts are needed to support the formation of the public’s opinion.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. Doudna JA. The promise and challenge of therapeutic genome editing. Nature 2020;578:229–36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shim G, Kim D, Park GT, Jin H, Suh SK, Oh YK. Therapeutic gene editing: delivery and regulatory perspectives. Acta Pharm Sin. 2017;38:738–53.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kelly EO, Yvonne B, Vence LB, Lily HA, Heidi CH, Rosario I, et al. The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Pers Med. 2019;16:337–50.

  4. Coller BS. Ethics of human genome editing. Annu Rev Med. 2019;70:289–305.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Science Council of Japan. Statemen: Ethical Justification for the Use of Genome Editing Technology for Human Reproduction. 2020.

  7. Kleiderman E, Stedman INK. Human germline genome editing is illegal in Canada, but could it be desirable for some members of the rare disease community? J Commun Genet. 2020;11:129–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Health Sciences Council, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Expert Committee on the Clinical Use of Human Fertilized Embryos Using Genome Editing Technology, etc. Technical Committee on the Clinical Use of Human Fertilized Embryos Summary of Discussions. 2020.

  9. Treleaven T, Tuch BE. Australian public attitudes on gene editing of the human embryo. J Law Med. 2018;26:204–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Guidelines for Gene Therapy Clinical Research, 2019.

  11. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Creating Human Embryos Ethical Guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Clinical Research, 2010.

  12. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Ethical Guidelines for Research Using Genetic Information Modification Technology on Human Embryos, 2019.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Governance WHOHE. Human Genome Editing: Recommendations. World Health Organization. 2021.

  15. Delhove J, Osenk I, Prichard I, Donnelley M. Public acceptability of gene therapy and gene editing for human use: a systematic review. Hum Gene Ther. 2020;31:20–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jedwab A, Vears DF, Tse C, Gyngell C. Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public. J Hum Genet. 2020;65:1055–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;64:945–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Watanabe D, Saito Y, Tsuda M, Ohsawa R. Increased awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-editing technology: The impact of the Chinese twin babies. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0238128.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Japan Patients Association. Accessed 05 Feb 2022.

  21. Approved Specified Nonprofit Corporation The Support Network for NANBYO Children of Japan. Accessed 05 Feb 2022.

  22. McCaughry T, David MB, Paul GS, George ECG, Li F, Eva F, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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:e00803.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McCaughey T, Sanfilippo PG, Gooden GE, 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fitz NS, Nadler R, Manogaran P, Chong EWJ, Reiner PB. Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics. 2013;7:173–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vermeulen E, Henneman L, van El CG, Cornel MC. Public attitudes towards preventive genomics and personal interest in genetic testing to prevent disease: a survey study. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24:768–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by a grant from the Health Labor Sciences Research Grant (20CA2005). We thank the Japan Patients Association, Approved Specified Nonprofit Corporation the Support Network for NANBYO Children of Japan, the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Japan Pediatric Society, the Japan Society of Perinatal and Neonatal Medicine and the Japan Society of Human Genetics. We are grateful to our study support staff and, most importantly, survey participants for their contribution to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenji Takehara.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kobayashi, S., Miyoshi, T., Kobayashi, T. et al. Public attitudes in the clinical application of genome editing on human embryos in Japan: a cross-sectional survey across multiple stakeholders. J Hum Genet 67, 541–546 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links