ArticlePloS one2020
Increased awareness and decreased acceptance of genome-editing technology: The impact of the Chinese twin babies.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with patient preferences for statin therapy in primary prevention.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- 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
- Public acceptance of genome editing in Saudi Arabia is driven by therapeutic benefit despite limited awareness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Human cognitive enhancement and reprogenetic technologies in Malaysia - A survey study of local Muslim undergraduate students' viewpoints.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Article
- Consumer choices regarding genome-edited food crops: lessons from Japan.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Article
- Growing knowledge impact of gene-editing technology on public acceptance: a longitudinal analysis in Japan.GM crops & food · 2024Article
- Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Community engagement in genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 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
- Deep Brain Stimulation for Consciousness Disorders; Technical and Ethical Considerations.Neuroethics · 2024Article
- Managers' attitudes toward gene-editing technology and companies' R&D investment in gene-editing: the case of Chinese seed companies.GM crops & food · 2022Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Therapeutic Human Genome Editing From Multiple and Diverse Viewpoints: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2022Article
- Consumer acceptance of new plant-breeding technologies: An application to the use of gene editing in fresh table grapes.PloS one · 2022Article
- Regulatory approaches for genome edited agricultural plants in select countries and jurisdictions around the world.Transgenic research · 2021Review
- Attitudes of Indonesian Medical Doctors and Medical Students Toward Genome Editing.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome-editing technology has become increasingly known in recent years, and the 2018 news of genome-edited twins in China had a particularly significant impact on public awareness. In the present study we investigate the effect of Japanese media coverage on public opinions of this technology. To identify the effects we employ a questionnaire survey method on a pre-registered sample from online research company Macromill. Our repeated survey from 2016 through 2019 reveal a generally supportive attitude toward the medical application of genome-editing methods. To see this we employed a multinomial logit analysis examining the determinants of negative and positive impressions of the technology. Results show that although editing for medical purposes remained mostly acceptable, its use in fertilizing human eggs was increasingly rejected, especially in 2019, the most recent sample year. The suggestion is that while genome-editing applications in general medical fields are publicly accepted, its use in human functionality enhancement is heavily increasingly resisted. News of the twin babies in China did raise public awareness of the methods but also damaged their reputation. It therefore is important for genome researchers to hold such concerns in mind, keeping the public informed of changing technology fundamentals. As a related question we inquire into the public acceptability of genome editing for animal and plant breeding, such as in agriculture and fisheries, as well. We find the Japanese public views the medical and breeding applications of this technology to be unconnected with each other, despite that awareness of both has risen significantly in recent years.
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.