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

Growing knowledge impact of gene-editing technology on public acceptance: a longitudinal analysis in Japan

Genome editing (GE) technology holds significant promise for advancements in crop development and medical applications. However, public acceptance of GE in Japan remains uncertain. This study aimed to examine how knowledge impacts public acceptance of GE technology, focusing on differences across diffusion stages and application purposes. Using ordinary least squares regression on repeated survey data collected from 2018 to 2023 in Japan (n = 6,234), we investigated the influence of knowledge on support for GE in consumer benefits, producer benefits, and medical technology. Our findings revealed that the effect of knowledge on technology acceptance has strengthened over time. Consumers with greater knowledge of GE are increasingly supportive of its advancement, emphasizing the growing importance of information as the technology becomes more widespread. This research highlights the role of transparent policy discussions in fostering public trust and support, thereby promoting the successful integration of new technologies into society.

U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions

Introduction: Implementation of gene editing in agriculture and medicine hinges on public acceptance. The objectives of this study were to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in agricultural and medical fields and to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact of evidence to improve opinions about safety. Methods: Data were from two samples of U.S. respondents: 1,442 respondents in 2021 and 3,125 respondents in 2022. Survey respondents provided their opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields and answered questions about the number of studies or length of time without a negative outcome to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields. Results: Results indicated that respondents in both samples were more familiar, more likely to have an opinion about safety, and more positive about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural field than in the medical field. Also, familiarity was more closely associated with opinions about safety than the strength of opinions. Discussion: These findings add to the literature examining perceptions of gene editing in the agricultural or medical fields separately. Opinions about the safety of gene editing were generally more favorable for respondents who were aware of the use of gene editing. These results support a proactive approach for effective communication strategies to inform the public about the use of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields.

Acceptance of genetic editing and of whole genome sequencing of human embryos by patients with infertility before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic

RESEARCH QUESTION

Has acceptance of heritable genome editing (HGE) and whole genome sequencing for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT-WGS) of human embryos changed after the onset of COVID-19 among infertility patients?

DESIGN

A written survey conducted between April and June 2018 and July and December 2021 among patients at a university-affiliated infertility practice. The questionnaire ascertained the acceptance of HGE for specific therapeutic or genetic 'enhancement' indications and of PGT-WGS to prevent adult disease.

RESULTS

In 2021 and 2018, 172 patients and 469 patients (response rates: 90% and 91%, respectively) completed the questionnaire. In 2021, significantly more participants reported a positive attitude towards HGE, for therapeutic and enhancement indications. In 2021 compared with 2018, respondents were more likely to use HGE to have healthy children with their own gametes (85% versus 77%), to reduce disease risk for adult-onset polygenic disorders (78% versus 67%), to increase life expectancy (55% versus 40%), intelligence (34% versus 26%) and creativity (33% versus 24%). Fifteen per cent of the 2021 group reported a more positive attitude towards HGE because of COVID-19 and less than 1% a more negative attitude. In contrast, support for PGT-WGS was similar in 2021 and 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly increased acceptance of HGE was observed, but not of PGT-WGS, after the onset of COVID-19. Although the pandemic may have contributed to this change, the exact reasons remain unknown and warrant further investigation. Whether increased acceptability of HGE may indicate an increase in acceptability of emerging biomedical technologies in general needs further investigation.

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research

As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.