ArticleJournal of human genetics2020
Genetics experience impacts attitudes towards germline gene editing: a survey of over 1500 members of the public.
Article in Journal of human genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Public opinion survey on heritable human genome editing in South Africa: a study protocol.Global health action · 2026Article
- 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
- 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
- Views of the Swiss public towards gene editing.PloS one · 2026Article
- Singaporean attitudes to cognitive enhancement: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of medical ethics · 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
- Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- 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
- Gene editing isn't just about food: comments from U.S. focus groups.GM crops & food · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.