ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2019
Attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions toward gene editing technology.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.PloS one · 2026Article
- From Blog to lab: testing messages to shift public opinion on gene editing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- An exploration of the perspectives of Dutch adults experiencing a genetic condition on human germline gene editing.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- A decade of public engagement regarding human germline gene editing: a systematic scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Strategies for Interdisciplinary Human Gene Editing Research: Insights from a Swiss Project.The CRISPR journal · 2025Article
- Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Whether Whole Eye Transplant is a Benefit or Harm Depends on More Than the Observer.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2024Article
- "What if" should precede "whether" and "how" in the social conversation around human germline gene editing.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- A Q methodology study on divergent perspectives on CRISPR-Cas9 in the Netherlands.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Attitudes toward population screening among people living with fragile X syndrome in the UK: 'I wouldn't wish him away, I'd just wish his fragile X syndrome away'.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public.Journal of human genetics · 2020Article
- Social and cultural influences on genetic screening programme acceptability: A mixed-methods study of the views of adults, carriers, and family members living with thalassemia in the UK.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Beliefs and Values About Gene Therapy and In-Utero Gene Editing in Patients with Hemophilia and Their Relatives.The patient · 2020Article
- Attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions toward gene editing technology.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe views of people with genetic conditions are crucial to include in public dialogue around developing gene editing technologies. This qualitative study sought to characterize the attitudes of people with inherited retinal conditions (retinitis pigmentosa [RP] and Leber congenital amaurosis [LCA]) toward gene editing.
methodsIndividuals with RP (N = 9) and LCA (N = 8) participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews about their experience with and attitudes toward blindness, and their views about gene editing technology for somatic, germline, and enhancement applications.
resultsParticipants saw potential benefits from gene editing in general, but views about its use for retinal conditions varied and were influenced by personal perspectives on blindness. Those who felt more negatively toward blindness, particularly those with later onset blindness, were more supportive of gene editing for retinal conditions. Concerns about both germline and somatic editing included: the importance of informed consent; impacts of gene editing on social attitudes and barriers affecting blind people; and worries about "eliminating" blindness or other traits.
conclusionPeople with RP and LCA have diverse attitudes toward gene editing technology informed by their own lived experience with disability, and many have concerns about how the ways in which it is discussed and implemented might affect them.
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.