Playing God? Religious Perspectives on Manipulating the Genome

The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: the moral judgement of the lay public

Introduction

Advancements in life sciences have significantly boosted biomedical capabilities. Genetic testing forecasts hereditary traits and disease susceptibility, while CRISPR/Cas allows permanent genome alterations. However, ethical considerations arise regarding the morality of these capabilities, particularly concerning the moral status, autonomy, and privacy of living beings. The lack of valid instruments to assess moral judgment in genetic technologies highlights the need for this study, aiming to translate and validate the "Genetic Technologies Questionnaire" (GTQ) and the short version of the "Conventional Technologies Questionnaire" (CTQ5) into Greek. As the full version of the GTQ with 30 questions could be too extensive for some studies, we also tested other versions: The short versions GTQ20-GR and GTQ5-GR which were already presented in the original study, as well as a version which included questions solely about humans (GTQ-H-GR) and is intended for use in human research and therapy, and the GTQ-Moral Status (GTQ-MS-GR), which included questions about genetic testing and gene editing in different living beings to investigate differences in moral status.

Methods

A cross-sectional study involved 250 participants who completed an online questionnaire, assessing internal consistency, structural validity, known-groups validity, floor/ceiling effects, and retest reliability (subset of 50 participants). Correlational analyses explored relationships with education, age, genetic knowledge, religiosity, and genetic testing experience. The study followed the STROBE checklist for reporting.

Results

The GTQ-GR (Cronbach's α = 0.929) and GTQ20-GR (α = 0.935) exhibit high reliability and stability in assessing moral judgment among lay people, whereas the GTQ5-GR (α = 0.866) and CTQ5-GR (α = 0.758) displayed some weaknesses. Participants tended to rate conventional technologies more favorably than genetic technologies, with genetic testing perceived more positively than genome editing. The two additional derived versions, GTQ-H-GR (α = 0.859) and GTQ-MS-GR (α = 0.787), also demonstrated solid psychometric characteristics.

Conclusion

The GTQ-GR is a valid and reliable questionnaire with strong psychometric properties and is now available in Greek.

Rethinking progress: harmonizing the discourse on genetically modified crops

Genetically modified crops (GM crops) also known as biotech crops are crops that have been altered through genetic engineering techniques and under cultivation for approximately 28 years. By October 2024, over 30 nations have approved the cultivation of GM crops. The global area utilized for biotech crop production has reached 206.3 million hectares. Despite the substantial growth in the cultivation of these crops, debate continues between proponents and opponents of GM crops. In this article, critical concerns and common ground between the arguments of both sides were described. The main issues addressed include the naturalness of GM crops, religious perspectives, beneficial aspects, safety issues, socio-economic impacts and intellectual property rights. We argue that the classification GM crops as unnatural is a claim that lacks scientific reality. In a similar vein, comparing GM technology to the act of playing God is inappropriate. Moreover, the belief that GM crops do not contribute to yield improvements is inconsistent with empirical evidence. Additionally, the claim that foods produced from GM crops are unsafe for human consumption holds unseen concerns that is not on the ground. We have also highlighted the necessity of implementing intellectual property rights that support seed developers for a limited duration without violating farmers' rights. In conclusion, as a consumer has the right to know what they eat, labeling of GM food products fosters transparency and enhance consumer autonomy.

Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland

Despite many specialized studies on the views of the public or stakeholders who face inherited conditions that may be treatable by HGE, limited studies have focused on experts' views towards Human Gene Editing (HGE). Therefore, in this study we conducted exploratory interviews with 14 experts (scientists, clinicians, social scientists, lawyers) in Switzerland to assess their views towards HGE and how they expect the Swiss public to view HGE. We found general acceptance of Somatic Gene Editing (SGE), but opinions towards Germline Gene Editing (GGE) were more divided. Participants emphasized patient autonomy and informed decision-making in pursuing gene editing treatments, and described a need for regulation, as with any other new therapy. Only a few participants (mostly lawyers and ethicists) described the regulations that currently prohibit GGE in Switzerland. Some expressed concern that restrictive regulations would lead to healthcare outsourcing and medical tourism to other nearby countries, as it has in the past with other restricted technologies. The analysis explored the unique Swiss context that is shaped by cultural diversity, conservative attitudes towards new medical technologies, and a democratic system that engages the public in policy and law making. Given that our findings identify areas of difference from that published in other countries, we emphasize the value in conducting similar research across different countries in order to achieve a global sense of attitudes towards HGE, so that regulations can be tailored to the diverse needs of citizens around the world.

Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan

Genome editing is a technology that can accurately and efficiently modify the genome of organisms, including the human genome. Although human genome editing (HGE) has many benefits, it also involves technical risks and ethical, legal, and social issues. Thus, the pros and cons of using this technology have been actively debated since 2015. Notably, the research community has taken an interest in the issue and has discussed it internationally. However, for the governance of HGE, the roles of government agencies and the general public are also important for an effective regulatory system. Here, we examine the roles of the research community, government, and public in the governance of HGE through an analysis of discussions in the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics. During the discussion of the research ethics review system, the professionalism of the research community and the pros and cons of state oversight have become issues for debate. Furthermore, through an examination of the overall policy-making process, three stakeholders are clearly involved in the governance of emerging medical technologies in the Expert Panel on Bioethics, a discussion forum established by government agencies. The contrast among these roles provides insight into the positive roles of government agencies and the research community and the conditions under which these roles are played. We also note that there are diverse actors in the public, which may have an impact on their participation. Our results may serve as a guide for countries and organizations to establish governance on emerging medical technologies.

CRISPR Technology: A Jewish Legal Perspective

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) gene editing is an innovative and potentially game-changing biotechnology that can potentially reverse DNA mutations in a tissue-specific manner. In addition, CRISPR is being targeted for xenotransplantation, for increasing human longevity, in animal breeding, and in plant science. However, there are many ethical challenges that emerge from CRISPR technology. This article discusses several positions that relate to these ethical challenges from a Jewish legal perspective. In addition, we present several other applications of CRISPR technology that lack a defined Jewish legal precedent and require rabbinical scholars to address and resolve them in the future.