Attitudes of Members of Genetics Professional Societies Toward Human Gene Editing

Survey of attitude to human genome modification in Nigeria

Gene editing and mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) are biotechnologies used to modify the host nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, respectively. Gene editing is the modification of a region of the host genome using site-specific nucleases, in particular the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas system. Heritable and somatic genome editing (HGE and SGE) are used in gene therapy. MRT is a technique used to substitute the defective mitochondria in the recipient embryo with a female donor healthy mitochondrion in order to prevent the inheritance of mothers' defective mitochondria resulting in the change of mitochondria of the entire generation to come. To evaluate the perception of the Nigerian citizens on human genome modification, two survey forms were created and distributed in-person and majorly online. There was a total of 268 responses, 188 from the public and 80 from health workers and bio-scientists. The results showed poor knowledge about gene editing and MRT by the Nigerian public, but its use to prevent and cure inherited diseases was supported. Morality and religion have great influence on the attitude of Nigerians towards genome modification, but the influence of religion and morality is not unequivocal. Multiple regression analysis of Nigerian public responses shows that gender (females), age (19-30 years), monthly income (NGN 0 to 30,000), and level of education (tertiary) are significantly associated with approval of human genome editing, but the survey of health workers and bio-scientists shows no significant association except for females who approve and Muslims who disapprove of human genome editing.

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.

Super-Men and Wonder-Women: the Relationship Between the Acceptance of Self-enhancement, Personality, and Values

Due to ongoing technological innovations, self-enhancement methods are publicly discussed, researched from different perspectives, and part of ethical debates. However, only few studies investigated the acceptance of these methods and its relationship with personality traits and values. The present study investigated to what extent people accept different enhancement methods and whether acceptance can be predicted by Big Five and Dark Triad traits, vulnerable narcissism, and values. In an online survey (N = 450), we measured personality traits and values. Additionally, participants read scenarios about enhancement methods and answered questions about their acceptance of these scenarios. Factor analysis indicated a general factor of acceptance across scenarios. Correlation analyses showed that high agreeableness, agreeableness-compassion, conscientiousness, conscientiousness-industriousness, and conservation- and self-transcendence values are related to less acceptance of self-enhancement. Moreover, individuals high on Dark Triad traits, vulnerable narcissism, and self-enhancement values exhibit more acceptance. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that said values and Big Five traits explained unique variance in the acceptance of self-enhancement. These findings highlight the importance of considering personality and values when investigating self-enhancement—a topic that is receiving increasing attention by the public, politicians, and scientists.

The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research

The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.

Students' attitudes towards somatic genome editing versus genome editing of the germline using an example of familial leukemia

Although the discussion on possibilities and pitfalls of genome editing is ever present, limited qualitative data on the attitudes of students, who will come into contact with this technology within a social and professional context, is available. The attitude of 97 medical students and 103 students of other subjects from Hannover and Oldenburg, Germany, was analyzed in winter 2017/18. For this purpose, two dilemmas on somatic and germline genome editing concerning familial leukemia were developed. After reading the dilemmas, the students filled out a paper-and-pencil test with five open questions. The qualitative evaluation of the answers was carried by a deductive-inductive procedure of content analysis. There was a high approval for the use of somatic genome editing. When it came to germline genome editing, concerns were raised regarding enhancement, interventions in nature, and loss of uniqueness. The students recognized that somatic genome editing and germline genome editing prove different ethical challenges and need to be judged separately. Many students expressed not feeling fully informed. The results of this project show the importance of educating the public about the possibilities, limitations, and risks of somatic and germline genome editing. We recommend that this should already be addressed in schools in order to optimally prepare students and adults for participation in public discourse. Especially for patients affected by genetic diseases, it is of great importance that the treating physicians and geneticists are sufficiently informed about the method of genome editing to ensure good counseling.

Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing

Purpose

This study aimed to measure the attitudes of Indonesian medical doctors and students toward new technology in genome editing.

Materials and Methods

Online questionnaires regarding attitudes toward genome editing on health and non-health conditions, both in somatic cells and embryo, were distributed through researcher networks, email and social media specific to medical doctors and students. The data of 1055 valid questionnaires were processed; descriptive and association analyses between sociodemographic factors and attitudes toward genome editing were performed. Email in-depth interview was performed to explore the respondents’ answers.

Results

The results showed that Indonesian medical doctors’ and students’ knowledge of genome editing was limited and correlated with gender, place of residence, religion, education, marital status, childbearing and experience abroad. More than half of respondents supported genome editing for the treatment of fatal and debilitating diseases both in somatic cells and embryos, implying their consent to edited gene inheritance. However, this approval decreased when applied to non-health-related aspects, such as physical appearance, intelligence and strength. Factors affecting their attitudes toward genome editing included their status as medical doctors or students, gender, age, education, religion, economic status and place of residence.

Conclusion

Increasing knowledge and awareness of Indonesian medical doctors and students regarding genome editing is important. Even though its application in health-related matter was supported by a majority of the respondents, discussion from ethical and religious perspectives is necessary to ensure the acceptance.

Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public

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.

Attitudes Toward Hypothetical Uses of Gene-Editing Technologies in Parents of People with Autosomal Aneuploidies

Researchers are exploring the use of gene-editing technologies to prevent and/or treat genetic conditions in humans. Stakeholder views, including those of patient and family populations, are important in the ongoing bioethical discussion. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with parents of people with trisomy 21 (T21; N = 10), trisomy 18 (T18; N = 8), and trisomy 13 (T13; N = 9)-conditions not previously studied in regard to attitudes toward hypothetical gene editing. While many discussions focus on the morality of gene editing, parents in our study focused on quality of life and concerns about changing their children's identity. All participants prioritized ameliorating life-threatening health issues when those were present; many also emphasized increasing their children's communication and cognitive ability. These results suggest that patient populations with the lived experience of genetic conditions have unique concerns that may differ from broader discourse.

Perspectives of Sickle Cell Disease Stakeholders on Heritable Genome Editing

Advances in CRISPR technology and the announcement of the first gene-edited babies have sparked a global dialogue about the future of heritable genome editing (HGE). There has been an international call for public input to inform a substantive debate about benefits and risks of HGE. This study investigates the views of the sickle cell disease (SCD) community. We utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine SCD stakeholders' views in the United States. We found SCD stakeholders hold a nuanced view of HGE. Assuming the technology is shown to be safe and effective, they are just as supportive of HGE as genetics professionals, but more supportive than the general public. However, they are also concerned about the potential implications of HGE, despite this support. As discourse surrounding HGE advances, it is crucial to engage disease communities and other key stakeholders whose lives could be altered by these interventions.