Trial reportJournal of human genetics2019
Attitudes of clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors to genome editing and its clinical applications: A nation-wide questionnaire survey in Japan.
Trial report in Journal of human genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Pooled it
- Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Utilizing In Vitro Gametogenesis (IVG) and Stem Cell-Based Embryo Models (SCBEMs) for Human Reproduction in Singapore.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- From designer babies to edited food: comparing public attitudes toward CRISPR technology and gene editing in Japan and the United States.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Understanding the public's intention to adopt CRISPR-Cas9: the effect of beliefs, knowledge, and innovativeness.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.PloS one · 2026Article
- Experts' perspectives on human gene editing in Switzerland.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Human cognitive enhancement and reprogenetic technologies in Malaysia - A survey study of local Muslim undergraduate students' viewpoints.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Article
- Fundamental knowledge taught in compulsory education for effective genetic counseling: a qualitative study of descriptions in textbooks.Journal of community genetics · 2023Article
- Human genome editing in clinical applications: Japanese lay and expert attitudes.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Gene Therapy Knowledge and Attitude Among Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public.Journal of human genetics · 2020Article
- Increased awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-editing technology: The impact of the Chinese twin babies.PloS one · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing of the human embryo using CRISPR/Cas9 has the potential to prevent hereditary diseases from being transmitted to the next generation. However, attitudes to this technology have not been examined sufficiently among the genetic professionals who will use it in the near future. We conducted a questionnaire survey of Japanese clinical geneticists and certified genetic counselors. Differences were observed between them in their recognition of this technology and impressions on its difficulty and cost. Both groups worried about misuse of it, with insufficient information and rules. As key elements for such rules, they considered ethics, safety, and purpose. Most disapproved of modifying physical traits as an enhancement, though they hoped for the treatment of severe diseases. At current clinical sites, they tended to adopt a prudent attitude by mentioning only the possibility of genome editing in the future. Academic policies and legislation are required, especially for application in human embryos, through a consensus of professionals and general citizens. Furthermore, professionals should maintain awareness of new developments and regularly reexamine attitudes for the ongoing development of more suitable rules, education systems, and clinical protocols. As preparation for changes, opportunities to address ethical issues and initiate discussions are also required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31273322What 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.