ArticleFrontiers in public health2017
A CRISPR New World: Attitudes in the Public toward Innovations in Human Genetic Modification.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What do people think about genetic engineering? A systematic review of questionnaire surveys before and after the introduction of CRISPR.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Pooled it
- Public knowledge, attitudes, and ethical views on CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing for genetic diseases in Taif, Saudi Arabia.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Understanding the public's intention to adopt CRISPR-Cas9: the effect of beliefs, knowledge, and innovativeness.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Public acceptance of genome editing in Saudi Arabia is driven by therapeutic benefit despite limited awareness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- CRISPR/Cas9 a genomic engineering technology for treatment in ALS mouse models.Regenerative therapy · 2025Review
- Genetic knowledge and attitudes toward genomics across academic disciplines, a cross-sectional survey of university students in Samborondón, greater Guayaquil, Ecuador.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Acceptance of Genetic Engineering Among Adults in the UAE: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Public perceptions and willingness to accept somatic gene therapy: A Belgian survey study.Open research Europe · 2025Article
- Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Trust and Support for Cancer Research Biobanks: Insights from Cancer Patients in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Survey of attitude to human genome modification in Nigeria.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Biases in bioethics: a narrative review.BMC medical ethics · 2023Review
- Walking a Fine Germline: Synthesizing Public Opinion and Legal Precedent to Develop Policy Recommendations for Heritable Gene-Editing.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- An exploration of how gender, political affiliation, or religious identity is associated with comfort and perceptions of controversial topics in bioethics.Advances in physiology education · 2022Article
- The genetic technologies questionnaire: lay judgments about genetic technologies align with ethical theory, are coherent, and predict behaviour.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups.GM crops & food · 2021Article
- Disparities among infertility patients regarding genetic carrier screening, sex selection, and gene editing.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Regulating reproductive genetic services: dealing with spiral-shaped processes and techno-scientific imaginaries.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The potential to genetically modify human germlines has reached a critical tipping point with recent applications of CRISPR-Cas9. Even as researchers, clinicians, and ethicists weigh the scientific and ethical repercussions of these advances, we know virtually nothing about public attitudes on the topic. Understanding such attitudes will be critical to determining the degree of broad support there might be for any public policy or regulation developed for genetic modification research. To fill this gap, we gave an online survey to a large (2,493 subjects) and diverse sample of Americans. Respondents supported genetic modification research, although demographic variables influenced these attitudes-conservatives, women, African-Americans, and older respondents, while supportive, were more cautious than liberals, men, other ethnicities, and younger respondents. Support was also was slightly muted when the risks (unanticipated mutations and possibility of eugenics) were made explicit. The information about genetic modification was also presented as contrasting vignettes, using one of five frames: genetic editing, engineering, hacking, modification, or surgery. Despite the fact that the media and academic use of frames describing the technology varies, these frames did not influence people's attitudes. These data contribute a current snapshot of public attitudes to inform policy with regard to human genetic modification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.