ArticleHuman reproduction open2018
Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public.
Article in Human reproduction open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 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
- Dutch Christian Faith Leaders Deliberating Human Germline Gene Editing: A Qualitative Study.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Which religious and personal characteristics predict attitudes toward gene editing? Findings from a survey of 4,939 adults in the U.S.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- The Challenge of the Yuck Factor in Public Acceptance of Engineered Living Materials.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2025Article
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Moral judgment of genetic technologies: validation of the genetic technologies questionnaire in the German-speaking population.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Survey of attitude to human genome modification in Nigeria.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- 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.Reproductive biomedicine online · 2023Article
- Changes in opinions about human germline gene editing as a result of the Dutch DNA-dialogue project.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- The Public Perception of the #GeneEditedBabies Event Across Multiple Social Media Platforms: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Observational
- A deliberative public engagement study on heritable human genome editing among South Africans: Study results.PloS one · 2022Article
- A Q methodology study on divergent perspectives on CRISPR-Cas9 in the Netherlands.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Beliefs and Values About Gene Therapy and In-Utero Gene Editing in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Relatives.The patient · 2020Article
- Assessing Public Opinion on CRISPR-Cas9: Combining Crowdsourcing and Deep Learning.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat are the general public's reasons for being in favour of or against the use of genome modification for five potential applications? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall, 43 reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Various applications of somatic genome modification are progressing towards clinical introduction and several recent studies have reported on germline genome modification. This has incited a debate on ethical and legal implications and acceptability. There is a growing plea to involve the general public earlier on in the developmental process of science and (bio)technology including genome modification. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: In April 2016, a cross-sectional survey was launched online among the Dutch general public. A documentary on genome modification on public television and calls in social media invited viewers and non-viewers, respectively, to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsThe questionnaire introduced five potential future applications of genome modification: modified wheat for individuals with gluten intolerance; somatic modification for individuals with neuromuscular diseases; germline modification to prevent passing on a neuromuscular disease; germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV; and germline modification to increase intelligence. Participants were asked to indicate whether and why they would make use of genome modification in these scenarios. The reasons mentioned were analysed through content analysis by two researchers independently. The proportion of respondents that was willing to modify was described per scenario and associations with respondent characteristics were analysed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The survey was completed by 1013 participants. Forty-three reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. These could be categorized into 14 domains: safety of the individuals concerned; effectiveness; quality of life of the individuals concerned; existence of a clinical need or an alternative; biodiversity and ecosystems; animal homo sapiens (i.e. relating to effects on humans as a species); human life and dignity; trust in regulation; justice; costs; slippery slope; argument of nature; parental rights and duties; and (reproductive) autonomy. Participants' willingness to use genome modification was dependent on the application: most participants would eat modified wheat if gluten intolerant (74%), would use genome modification to cure his/her own neuromuscular disease (85%) and would apply germline modification to prevent passing on this neuromuscular disease (66%). A minority would apply germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV (30%) or increase intelligence (16%). Being young (odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 per year increase), being male (OR = 2.38), and having watched the documentary (OR = 1.82) were associated with being willing to apply genome modification in more scenarios. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Inquiring for reasons through open questions in a survey allowed for a larger sample size and intuitive responses but resulted in less depth than traditional face-to-face interviews. As the survey was disseminated through social media, the sample is not representative of the overall Dutch population, and hence the quantitative results should not be interpreted as such. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsFurther public consultation and a more in-depth ethical and societal debate on principles and conditions for responsible use of (germline) genome modification is required prior to future clinical introduction. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funded by the University of Amsterdam and University Medical Centre Utrecht. No conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.